Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel suspends nurse Samantha Pickering over patient record breaches and dishonesty
The Nursing and Midwifery Council has suspended nurse Samantha Jane Pickering for six months after a panel found she accessed patient records without clinical justification, contacted a patient after viewing her records, and gave dishonest answers during her employer's investigation.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 29 April 2026 · Updated 11 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 6 months
Added to MedicWatch: 11 July 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 Samantha Jane Pickering, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 13H4865E).
Decision date: 29 April 2026 · Hearing started 29 September 2025 and ended 29 April 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Samantha Jane Pickering accessed patients' clinical records without clinical justification, contacted one patient after viewing her records, and was dishonest when questioned about her actions by her employer. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired on public protection and public interest grounds and imposed a six-month suspension order with a review, plus an 18-month interim suspension order.
Charges
Found proved (mostly by admission): that without clinical justification she accessed the clinical records of Patient A on or around 12 April 2022; accessed the clinical records of Patient C on or around 7 April, 11 April and 6 May 2022, on the last occasion using a colleague's login; contacted Patient A after accessing her records; denied contacting Patient A and stated she did not recall accessing Patient B's records; and that those denials were dishonest in that she sought to conceal that she had accessed patient records (charges 11 and 12). Charges alleging she accessed Patient B's records without clinical justification, used confidential information to meet Patient B, and was dishonest about the Patient C access were found not proved.
Findings
The panel found the proved conduct amounted to misconduct, involving breaches of patient confidentiality and dishonesty during her employer's investigation. It found her insight developing but incomplete, a remaining risk of repetition, and her fitness to practise impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. It concluded the dishonesty fell towards the lower end of the range but was serious, imposed a six-month suspension order with a review before expiry, and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order to cover any appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Early admissions to a number of the charges and apologies made directly to the patients concerned; recent and more developed reflection dated 6 March 2026, including sharing learning with colleagues; no clinical concerns raised at any stage and a prolonged period of safe, effective work in a similar role following the incidents, without restriction and without repetition; positive testimonials and references attesting to her professionalism and integrity; relevant training undertaken to address identified concerns.
Aggravating factors
The dishonesty occurred twice during her employer's investigation process and in evidence before the panel; abuse of position of trust in accessing confidential information without clinical justification; a deliberate breach of the professional duty of confidentiality and the standards set out in the Code; the misconduct created a risk of harm to patients, in particular emotional harm arising from misuse of private information and a potential loss of public confidence; attitudinal concerns in relation to professional boundaries and probity; a pattern of misconduct over a period of four months involving repeated inappropriate access to the confidential records of two patients.
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.