The co-founder of a campaign raising concerns about maternity care at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Foundation Trust claims senior doctors, midwives and clerical staff at the hospital have inappropriately viewed her confidential notes. Rebecca Matthews says these staff were not responsible for her treatment at the time they had access to her records and in some cases were not involved at all. She made the disclosure after submitting a request to see who had access to her files and what personal information the trust held about her. said Matthews New statesman the discovery felt like “hit in the stomach”.
The Oxford revelation follows sacking 11 NHS staff on May 20 for inappropriately viewing the medical records of victims of the 2023 Nottingham stabbings. (A further 14 individuals received disciplinary action.) Earlier in May, Reported by the Health Service Journal that dozens of NHS staff in Liverpool illegally accessed the medical records of victims of the July 2024 Southport attack at a children’s dance class. A number faced disciplinary action. Unauthorized access to medical records is a crime under the Data Protection Act 2018.
An email sent to all OUH staff on May 20, and viewed by New statesmanreminded them that they can access electronic patient records “when they have a legitimate direct clinical reason to do so”. Viewing records of “patients you do not directly care for is not permitted … and is a criminal offense,” the email said. Actions “can and will be taken to investigate unauthorized access to data and disciplinary procedures may follow,” he concluded.
Oxford University Hospitals was one of 12 trusts to undergo rapid review as part of the independent inquiry into maternity and neonatal care in England. Labor peer Valerie Amos, who led the process, will publish her final recommendations in the coming weeks. But following one joint investigation between New statesman and News Channel 4 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 “outrageous” and said there were specific aspects of OUH care he wanted to look at.
Subscribe to the New Statesman for £1 a week
The record 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 obtain a copy of their personal data that others hold about them. The document, detailing every time an OUH staff member has logged into its electronic patient record since 2021, runs to 201 pages. Matthews – who received maternity care from the trust between 2016 and 2022 – admits many entries are legitimate, but says a significant number appear not to be.
In particular, she highlights two distinct periods when staff accessed her notes for which she can see no clinical reason. The first is in the weeks following the launch of her maternity campaign ‘Failed Families by OUH’ 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 – looked at her medical records a few weeks later. None seem to have a valid reason to do so.
“I’ve tried to think of any possible reason why they would need to have access to my data and there isn’t a justifiable reason,” Matthews said. To him, there could be “no other reason why (obstetricians) would look at my medical records other than for some form of intelligence gathering about me.” The consultants accessed her data on the same day, within three hours of each other. Both looked at numerous clinical documents related to Matthews and looked at “Critical Patient Information” while in notes. This was two years after Matthews’ maternity care at the hospital had ceased. And while Matthews has been in a lengthy grievance process with OUH since last summer, this approach predates hers by 11 months.
A second period where her notes were reached coincided with the unification New statesman/Channel 4 News investigation into OUH maternity services. A senior midwife and a “health records officer” 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, November 5, 2025, another elderly midwife – who was never involved in Matthews’ care – spent more than two hours looking at her confidential records. This senior midwife viewed multiple clinical documents and patient charts as well as critical patient information.
A third consultant obstetrician approached Matthews’ notes the next day (while Channel 4 News aired a second article on OUH care). This consultant had been involved in Matthews’ care in previous years and had done a disparaging remarks in her birth notes in 2021. In an email to a colleague he said: “Now that you’ve met her, you love her?! I don’t!!!!” The trust and the consultant in question apologized to Matthews when she learned of the remark years later.
Freddie van Mierlo, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxfordshire, condemned the allegations of inappropriate access to Matthews’ confidential data as “plainly unacceptable”. “Medical notes should only be accessed for medical reasons,” he told her New statesman. “Given that Rebecca has said she was not undergoing any treatment, there is no justification for accessing that data.” Van Mierlo argued that the NHS had an “accountability problem”. “This is probably an example of pointing the finger at the person raising the problems, rather than trying to address them themselves,” he said.
Interim chief executive at University Hospitals Oxford NHS Foundation Trust, Simon Crowther, confirmed New statesman that an investigation into “possible inappropriate access to the 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 “recorded and fully monitored” by the trust. “If any staff are found to have accessed data without any legitimate reason, then disciplinary action will be taken in accordance 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 campaign for safer maternity care. of New statesman has previously disclosed that on top of the derogatory comment in her notes referred to 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 of whose babies had died or been left severely disabled at birth, was also recorded without their knowledge by an individual related to, but not employed by.
The discovery of unexplained access to her data, however, “felt like the biggest betrayal of all,” Matthews said. “There is nothing more personal or confidential than those records. And I have been extremely disturbed as a result of them.” Matthews said she and her family no longer trust OUH to provide their health care. The revelation has also had a “chilling effect” on other families who have spoken publicly about poor care.
“Patients should be able to receive care in an NHS facility… and also challenge and take action against that facility without fear of the two interacting,” Van Mierlo said. It doesn’t matter whether Matthews’ medical records were viewed “out of curiosity or a desire to find something that could be used against the patient’s attorney. It’s completely inappropriate and it’s a violation of patient privacy.”
Matthews is most concerned that it is unclear exactly how many OUH employees may have viewed her records without a valid reason. While the names of some individuals, the log shows dozens of instances since Matthews started the campaign where access was gained by generic usernames like “secretaries” and “clerks.” “It just makes me feel sick,” she said, “and I want answers.” Matthews said it was “terrifying” to think that “there are people out there who have read my extremely sensitive medical records and I have no idea who they are or why they’re doing it.” When asked by New statesmanthe trust did not confirm how many employees were able to log in with these usernames.
Matthews has reported the doctors and midwives she believes illegally accessed her medical records to their respective regulatory bodies – the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), respectively. She has also reported to Thames Valley Police.
(Further reading: The next maternity scandal in Britain)
Content from our partners
