Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 6 months

Added to MedicWatch: 26 April 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 Shelley Rossiter, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 14B0329E).

Decision date: 17 April 2026 · Hearing started 13 April 2026 and ended 17 April 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Shelley Rossiter, a senior nurse at Northampton General Hospital, accessed the clinical records of family members and family members of colleagues without authority or clinical justification on many occasions over a five-year period. The panel found there was no actual harm to patients but the conduct was a serious breach of the duty of confidentiality. It found her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds and imposed a six-month suspension order with review. No interim order was made.

Charges

Whilst working as a registered nurse at Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust, between August 2018 and December 2023, on numerous occasions Mrs Rossiter accessed the clinical records of family members and family members of colleagues without the necessary authority and/or clinical justification. The records accessed across the CaMIS and ICE systems related to a number of identified patients on dozens of occasions per patient over a five-year period. A further charge that she accessed a colleague's records without authority was found not proved.

Findings

The panel found Charges 1a and 1b proved, relying on the audit trail evidence, witness evidence from the Trust investigators, the absence of accesses during her maternity leave, and her partial admissions. It found Charge 1c not proved on the basis of a plausible clinical-context explanation. The panel found her actions amounted to serious misconduct, including breaches of confidentiality (Code paragraphs 1.5, 5.1, 5.3) and the duties of leadership and role-modelling (20.1, 20.3, 20.8). It found no evidence of actual harm to patients and did not find impairment on public protection grounds. It found her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only, citing limited but developing insight, prolonged misconduct after she knew her actions were wrong, and the need to mark seriousness and uphold public confidence in the profession.

Mitigating factors

Early partial admissions of wrongdoing; evidence of some genuine reflection and reflective material provided in relation to her conduct; efforts to undertake relevant training in information governance and confidentiality; positive testimonials from senior colleagues (including the colleague whose son's record she had inappropriately accessed) and her manager, all with knowledge of the regulatory concerns, demonstrating that she is a competent and valued nurse.

Aggravating factors

Abuse of a position of trust, arising from her senior roles and access to confidential systems; deliberate breaches of the Code, particularly the fundamental duty of confidentiality; a pattern of misconduct over a prolonged period of five years; lack of full insight, with only partial admissions made; premeditated behaviour, in that she knowingly accessed records without authorisation on multiple occasions.

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.