Dr Patricia Gillen NMC Midwifery Committee Member

 Background  Role of Midwifery Committee  Kind’s Fund Outcomes/Recommendations  Midwifery Committee Position  Particular risks  Going Forward

 Dec 2013; Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)England published a thematic report on midwifery regulation; prompted the need to scrutinise the unique arrangements that apply to midwifery.  She recommended that two principles should apply ▪ That midwifery supervision and regulation should be separated ▪ That the NMC should be in direct control of regulatory activity  Jan NMC accepted PHSO’s judgement that Supervision ‘structurally flawed’ and commissioned an independent review focused on ▪ Public protection ▪ Proportionality ▪ Public Confidence in the Regulatory model ▪ PSA Standards of good regulation ▪ Public Assurance about the responsibility & accountability of service providers ▪ Fairness to midwives whose FTP is called into question

 To provide advice to the NMC Council in exercising its decision-making powers  Review of Midwifery regulation; subsequent to the King’s fund review of regulation

 No conclusive evidence within existing data that supported a relationship between the supervisory function for midwives and improvements in ‘quality’ of FtP cases considered by the NMC  Supervision was clearly valued by midwives & keen for supervisory function to remain in any future regulatory framework…although not necessarily within remit of NMC; although concern if not under NMC would cease to happen  Recognition by King’s fund that revalidation might mitigate some of the risks of changing midwifery regulation

 King’s fund conclusions supported contention of structural flaws in current supervisory framework; inherent conflict of interest between NMC’s regulatory & supervisory functions  King’s fund had engaged with stakeholders and explored the issues that they been tasked to do  Midwifery Profession did not require supervision to be regulatory but they wanted it in statute

 NMC would need to carry out a public consultation on any changes to its rules/standards  Potential of revalidation to reinforce best practice in professional support and development  There was scope for devolved administrations to take different approaches to supervision  Important to identify benefits and risks associated with change  NMC should not determine precisely what should be taken forward

 Associated with the potential loss of the non- regulatory aspects of supervision ▪ The LSA and expertise of the LSAMO’s; & the oversight exercised by the LSAMO’s and the potential benefits of the monitoring they undertake ▪ Specifics such as the ITP arrangements and Protected Title status

 The Review of midwifery supervision would remain a focus for the Committee  The importance of data was highlighted by King’s fund in its report…the Committee pointed out the need for the NMC to use and have data available for evidence based decisions

 Thanks for listening