Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel suspends nurse Nicola Haran for two months over record access

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has suspended nurse Nicola Haran for two months after finding she looked at the records of eight patients and a colleague without clinical justification in 2021, and was dishonest when first asked. The panel found she does not present a risk to the public.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 5 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 2 months

Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.

Concerning Nicola Paris Haran, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 10I0890S).

Decision date: 5 August 2026 · Hearing started 27 July 2026 and ended 5 August 2026

In plain English

The NMC found that Nicola Paris Haran, a registered nurse, accessed the clinical records of eight patients and a colleague without clinical justification between January and November 2021, including those of a child who had died, and was dishonest when first asked about two of them. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only, and said she posed no risk to the public and had remediated her practice. It imposed a two-month suspension order without a review.

Charges

The NMC alleged that the registrant, a registered nurse, accessed without clinical justification the records of Child D on 26 January 2021, Patient L on 4 June 2021, Patient K on 9 July 2021, Patient E on 17 August 2021, Patient F on 19 August 2021, Child B and Child C on 28 September 2021, Colleague A on 29 September 2021, and Patient J on 14 May 2021 and 3 November 2021. It further alleged that on 10 November 2021 she initially denied knowing Child B, Child C, Child D, Patient E, Patient F, Patient K, Patient L and Colleague A; and that between 10 November 2021 and 10 October 2023 she stated that Colleague B had asked her to access Patient E's record and that Colleague A had asked her to access their own record. Charges 13 and 14 alleged that this conduct was dishonest, in that she knew she had accessed records without clinical justification and sought to conceal that she had done so.

Findings

The registrant admitted charges 1 to 9, 10a, 10b, 10c, 10g, 11, 12, and charges 13 and 14 in relation to those admitted denials. The panel additionally found charges 10e and 10f proved, together with charges 13 and 14 in relation to them. It found charges 10d, 10h, 13 in relation to charges 11 and 12, and 14 in relation to charges 10c, 11 and 12 not proved, accepting her account that Colleague B and Colleague A had asked her to access the records in question and noting evidence of a workplace culture in which accessing relatives' records was treated as acceptable. The panel found the proved facts amounted to misconduct, breaching Code standards 4.2, 5.1, 10.6, 20.1, 20.2, 20.6 and 20.10. It found limbs b), c) and d) of the Grant test engaged in relation to her past actions, but concluded she had remediated her practice over four years and that repetition was highly unlikely. Fitness to practise was found currently impaired on public interest grounds only, not on public protection grounds. The panel imposed a suspension order for two months without a review and declined to impose an interim order.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: the COVID pandemic was ongoing at the time and contributed to the stresses she was facing; a short-lived incident of dishonesty; developed insight and demonstrated remorse; over four years of positive nursing practice since the misconduct; the culture in the workplace at the time of the incidents; and relevant training courses.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: abuse of a position of trust as a registered nurse; a pattern of misconduct over a period of 9 months; breach of confidentiality, including accessing particularly sensitive records; and dishonesty, being a breach of the duty of candour.

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.