Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel strikes off nurse Karen Grimley for accessing 22 patient records
A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck mental health nurse Karen Grimley off the register after finding she looked at the clinical records of 22 patients across two NHS trusts in 2020, including those of her father and colleagues, with no clinical justification.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 5 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 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 Karen Louise Grimley, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 11F1544E).
Decision date: 5 August 2026 · Hearing started 3 August 2026 and ended 5 August 2026
In plain English
The NMC found that Karen Louise Grimley, a registered mental health nurse, accessed the clinical records of 22 patients at two NHS trusts between February and May 2020 without clinical justification, including records belonging to her father, a three-year-old child and colleagues. The panel found her explanations implausible, said her conduct showed deep-seated attitudinal issues, and found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct. It made a striking-off order. An interim suspension order of 18 months was also imposed.
Charges
The NMC alleged that the registrant, a registered nurse: (1) between 14 February 2020 and 16 May 2020 accessed the clinical records of 19 patients registered with Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, any or all, without clinical justification; and (2) between 2 April 2020 and 21 April 2020 accessed the clinical records of 3 patients registered with Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust, any or all, without clinical justification. In light of the above, the NMC alleged her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct. Ms Grimley did not attend the hearing and was unrepresented; the panel decided to proceed in her absence under Rule 21.
Findings
The panel found charges 1 and 2 proved on the balance of probabilities. It noted her admissions at local level that she had accessed the records without clinical justification, and found her explanations, that she was conducting a 'sweep' of records for referrals, that she accessed her father's record only to identify his ward, and that some access was accidental, to be implausible. The panel found the conduct amounted to serious misconduct, breaching Code standards 1.1, 1.5, 5.1, 10.5, 20.1, 20.2, 20.4 and 20.5, and determined that limbs a), b) and c) of the Grant test were engaged. It found the misconduct indicative of deep-seated attitudinal issues, noted the absence of updated reflection, training or testimonials and her lack of engagement with the NMC since March 2025, and determined there was a real risk of repetition. Fitness to practise was found currently impaired on public protection and public interest grounds. The panel concluded that the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register and directed the Registrar to strike her off. An interim suspension order of 18 months was imposed to cover the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The panel took into account the following mitigating features: some remorse; and some early partial admissions.
Aggravating factors
The panel took into account the following aggravating features: abuse of a position of trust; a pattern of misconduct over a period of time; limited insight; conduct which deliberately or recklessly puts people receiving care at risk of suffering harm; vulnerable victims; potential criminal acts; chose to ignore training; and accessing colleagues' clinical records.
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.