Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off midwife Tracy Penny over competence and record dishonesty

The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has struck midwife Tracy Anne Penny off the register, finding persistent competence failings and that she dishonestly recorded blood glucose checks on a newborn baby which she had not carried out.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 16 July 2026 · Updated 23 July 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 23 July 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Tracy Anne Penny, midwife (Nursing and Midwifery Council 19I2270E).

Decision date: 16 July 2026 · Hearing started 2 February 2026 and ended 16 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Tracy Anne Penny, a registered midwife, failed to meet the standards of knowledge, skill and judgement expected of a band 5 midwife across many areas, including cardiotocography interpretation, escalation, medication safety and record keeping, despite extensive support. The panel also found she did not carry out blood glucose monitoring on a newborn baby but recorded that she had, which it found dishonest. It decided her fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a striking-off order with an 18-month interim suspension.

Charges

That, as a registered midwife: (1) she failed to demonstrate the standards of knowledge, skill and judgement required to practise without supervision as a band 5 midwife on specified dates in 2021 and 2023, including preparing an incorrect dose of medication and an injection with an incorrect size needle, failing to follow the 'fresh eyes' protocol for hourly observations, administering medication without relevant medical safety checks, failing to interpret and escalate deteriorating or suspicious cardiotocography, altering observation stickers, administering inappropriate medication while under a supported practice plan, using incorrect cardiotocography stickers, failing to carry out and accurately interpret observations and to make accurate records, breaking the sterile field, failing to recognise that an episiotomy was required, failing to identify and react when a baby was born floppy with no respiratory effort, failing to triple clamp an umbilical cord, and failing to assess risk or escalate severely high blood pressure and an inability to pass urine; (2) between 26 and 27 June 2022, failures in respect of Patient A and Patient AA including adequate checks, a safe sleeping conversation, a risk assessment, feeding records and a feeding chart, and blood glucose monitoring; (3) she completed blood glucose observation documentation in respect of monitoring she had not undertaken; and (4) those actions were dishonest in that she knew the record she had created was inaccurate and intended to mislead others that she had undertaken blood glucose monitoring.

Findings

The panel found the majority of the charges proved, and found charges 1b)i), 1b)iii), 1e)i), 1e)ii), 1f), 1g)i) and 1g)ii) not proved. It determined that the facts proved under charge 1 amounted to a lack of competence, finding numerous, repeated and wide-ranging deficiencies across fundamental areas of midwifery practice which persisted despite extensive support, supervision, action plans and educational input. It found charges 2, 3 and 4 amounted to misconduct, including the deliberate creation of an inaccurate clinical record documenting blood glucose monitoring of a newborn baby that had not been carried out. The panel found insight limited and remediation unevidenced, concluded that all four limbs of the Grant test were engaged, and found fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. It determined the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and imposed a striking-off order, together with an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover the appeal period.

Mitigating factors

The panel considered the personal mitigation provided by Mrs Penny within her written responses, including private personal circumstances which it did not set out in the public determination; her explanations regarding the pressures within the clinical environment and the level of support available to her at certain times; and that she was relatively newly qualified during part of the relevant period and had engaged with some aspects of the Trust's support and performance-management processes. The panel considered that these matters carried limited weight.

Aggravating factors

Abuse of the position of trust held as a registered midwife; repeated clinical failings across a broad range of fundamental midwifery competencies, occurring over a prolonged period rather than as isolated incidents; repeated failures affecting patient safety and clinical risk management; repeated failures to recognise, assess and escalate clinical concerns; repeated deficiencies in medicines management and record keeping; the persistence of concerns despite extensive support, supervision, action plans and educational input, and the failure to demonstrate sustained improvement; a pattern of misconduct during the relevant shift; reckless conduct which placed patients at risk of harm; dishonesty involving the creation of inaccurate clinical records, with the potential to mislead colleagues and compromise continuity of care; the vulnerability of Patient AA, who was a newborn baby; limited insight into the seriousness of the concerns; the absence of persuasive evidence of remediation; the failure to attend the hearing and engage fully with the proceedings; and the combination of both persistent lack of competence and serious misconduct.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.