Oxford trust accused of inappropriately accessing maternity campaigner’s medical records
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 “punched in the stomach”.
The Oxford revelation follows the sacking of 11 members of NHS staff 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 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’s dance class. A number faced disciplinary action. The unauthorised accessing of medical records is a crime under the Data Protection Act 2018.
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 “when they have a legitimate direct clinical reason to do this”. Viewing records of “patients you are not directly caring for is not permitted… and is a criminal offence”, the email said. Action “can and will be taken to investigate unauthorised access to records, and disciplinary proceedings may follow,” it concluded.
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 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 “scandalous” and said there were specific aspects of OUH care he wanted looked at.
The log detailing access to Matthews’ 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 – who received maternity care from the trust between 2016 and 2022 – accepts that many entries are legitimate, but says a significant number appear not to be.
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 “Families Failed by OUH” maternity campaign in June 2024. A nurse accessed Matthews’ medical records two days after the campaign group’s Facebook page went live. Two consultant obstetricians – neither of whom had ever been directly involved in her maternity care – viewed her medical records several weeks later. None appears to have a valid reason for doing so.
“I have tried to think of any possible reason why they would have to have accessed my records and there isn’t a justified reason,” Matthews said. To her, there can be “no other reason as to why [the obstetricians] would be looking through my medical records other than for some form of intelligence gathering about me”. 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 “Critical Patient information” while they were in the notes. This was two years after Matthews’ 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.
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 “health records clerk” accessed Matthews’ 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 – who was never involved in Matthews’ care – 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.
A third consultant obstetrician accessed Matthews’ notes the following day (as Channel 4 News broadcast a second piece on OUH care). This consultant had been involved in Matthews’ care in years past and had made a derogatory remark in her maternity notes in 2021. In an email to a colleague he said, “Now that you’ve met her, do you want her?! I don’t!!!!” The trust, and the consultant in question, apologised to Matthews when she learned of the remark years’ later.
Freddie van Mierlo, the Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat MP, condemned the allegations of inappropriate access to Matthews’ confidential records as “clearly unacceptable”. “Medical notes should only be accessed for medical reasons,” he told the New Statesman. “Given that Rebecca has said she was not undergoing any treatment, there’s no justification for accessing those records.” Van Mierlo argued that the NHS had an “accountability problem”. “This is perhaps an example of finger-pointing at the person raising the problems, rather than looking to address them themselves,” he said.
Interim chief executive officer at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Simon Crowther, confirmed to the New Statesman that an investigation into “potential inappropriate access to an electronic patient record” is underway and that the work is “ongoing”. “We take the issue of patient confidentiality extremely seriously,” he said in a statement, with all access to medical records “comprehensively logged and monitored” by the trust. “If any staff are found to have accessed the records without a legitimate reason, then disciplinary action would follow in line with the Trust’s policies and professional standards,” he said.
For Matthews, the discovery of unexplained access to her medical records is part of a wider pattern of what she calls, “institutional harassment”. She believes she has been targeted as a result of her campaigning for safer maternity care. The New Statesman has previously revealed that on top of the pejorative comment in her notes mentioned above, she received a six-page legal letter sent on behalf of an OUH consultant obstetrician in August 2025. A small meeting of families, some whose babies had died or were left with severe disabilities at birth, was also recorded without their knowledge by an individual with links to, but not employed by, the trust.
The discovery of unexplained access to her records, however, has “felt like the biggest betrayal of all”, Matthews said. “There is nothing more personal or confidential than those records. And I’ve been incredibly anxious as a result of it.” Matthews said that neither she, nor her family, trusts OUH to provide their healthcare any longer. The disclosure has had a “chilling effect” on other families who have spoken out publicly about poor care, too.
“Patients should be able to both receive care at an NHS institution… and also challenge and bring action against that institution without fear that the two interact,” Van Mierlo said. Whether Matthews’ medical records had been viewed “out of curiosity or a desire to find something out that can be used against a patient’s advocate, it doesn’t matter. It’s totally inappropriate and is a violation of a patient’s privacy.”
Matthews is most concerned by the fact that it is unclear precisely how many OUH staff may have viewed her records without a valid reason. While some individuals are named, the log shows dozens of occasions since Matthews began campaigning where access was obtained by generic usernames like “secretaries” and “clerical workers”. “It just makes me feel sick,” she said, “and I want answers.” Matthews said it was “horrifying” to think that “there are people out there who have read my incredibly sensitive medical records and I have no idea who they are or why they were doing it.” When asked by the New Statesman, the trust did not confirm how many staff were able to log in with these usernames.
Matthews has reported the doctors and midwives she believes have accessed her medical details illegitimately to their relevant regulatory bodies – the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), respectively. She has also filed a complaint to Thames Valley Police.
[Further reading: Britain’s next maternity scandal]
