1. Dr Patricia Gillen NMC Midwifery Committee Member

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

3.  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 2014- 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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Thanks for listening