![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/gettyimages-185232242-1038x778.jpg\")
\n Photo by Vasiliki\/ Getty<\/p>\n
\n Photo by Vasiliki\/ Getty<\/p>\n
The co-founder of a campaign raising concerns about maternity care at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUH), claims that senior doctors, midwives, and clerical workers at the hospital have inappropriately viewed her confidential notes. Rebecca Matthews says these staff were not responsible for her treatment at the time they accessed her records, and in some cases had never been involved at all. She made the discovery after submitting a request to see who had accessed her files and what personal information the trust held about her. Matthews told the New Statesman the disclosure felt like being \u201cpunched in the stomach\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Oxford revelation follows the sacking of 11 members of NHS staff<\/a> on 20 May for inappropriately looking at the medical records of the victims of the 2023 Nottingham stabbings. (A further 14 individuals received disciplinary action.) Earlier in May, the Health Service Journal reported <\/a>that dozens of NHS staff in Liverpool had unlawfully accessed the medical records of the victims of the July 2024 Southport attack on a children\u2019s dance class. A number faced disciplinary action. The unauthorised accessing of medical records is a crime under the Data Protection Act 2018.<\/p>\n An email sent to all OUH staff on 20 May, and seen by the New Statesman, reminded them that they may only access electronic patient records \u201cwhen they have a legitimate direct clinical reason to do this\u201d. Viewing records of \u201cpatients you are not directly caring for is not permitted\u2026 and is a criminal offence\u201d, the email said. Action \u201ccan and will be taken to investigate unauthorised access to records, and disciplinary proceedings may follow,\u201d it concluded.<\/p>\n Oxford University Hospitals was one of 12 trusts that underwent rapid review as part of the independent investigation into maternity and neonatal care in England. Labour peer Valerie Amos, who led the process, is due to publish her final recommendations in the coming weeks. But following a joint investigation between the New Statesman and Channel 4 News<\/a> last November, NHS England was asked to undertake a further, separate investigation into OUH. Wes Streeting, the health secretary at the time, called our findings \u201cscandalous\u201d and said there were specific aspects of OUH care he wanted looked at.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Subscribe to the New Statesman for \u00a31 a week<\/p>\n The log detailing access to Matthews\u2019 confidential medical records was released as part of a subject access request. Under the law individuals have the right to access and receive a copy of their personal data that others hold about them. The document, detailing every time an OUH staff member logged on to her electronic patient record since 2021, extends to 201 pages. Matthews \u2013 who received maternity care from the trust between 2016 and 2022 \u2013 accepts that many entries are legitimate, but says a significant number appear not to be.<\/p>\n In particular, she highlights two distinct periods where staff accessed her notes, for which she can see no clinical reason. The first is in the weeks following the launch of her \u201cFamilies Failed by OUH\u201d maternity campaign in June 2024. A nurse accessed Matthews\u2019 medical records two days after the campaign group\u2019s Facebook page went live. Two consultant obstetricians \u2013 neither of whom had ever been directly involved in her maternity care \u2013 viewed her medical records several weeks later. None appears to have a valid reason for doing so. <\/p>\n \u201cI have tried to think of any possible reason why they would have to have accessed my records and there isn\u2019t a justified reason,\u201d Matthews said. To her, there can be \u201cno other reason as to why [the obstetricians] would be looking through my medical records other than for some form of intelligence gathering about me\u201d. The consultants accessed her records on the same day, within three hours of each other. Both viewed multiple clinical documents relating to Matthews and viewed \u201cCritical Patient information\u201d while they were in the notes. This was two years after Matthews\u2019 maternity care at the hospital had ceased. And while Matthews has been in a lengthy complaints process with OUH since last summer, this access preceded it by 11 months.<\/p>\n A second period where her notes were accessed coincided with the joint New Statesman\/Channel 4 News investigation into OUH maternity services. A senior midwife and a \u201chealth records clerk\u201d accessed Matthews\u2019 medical records in the run up to publication, after the trust had been formally notified of our findings. On the day of publication itself, 5 November 2025, another senior midwife \u2013 who was never involved in Matthews\u2019 care \u2013 spent more than two hours viewing her confidential records. This senior midwife viewed multiple clinical documents and patient charts, as well as critical patient information.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net\/2021\/09\/TNS_master_logo.svg\"){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/p>\n