Nicola Paris Haran
Introduction
Nicola Paris Haran is a registered nurse who was given a two-month suspension by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) on 5 August 2026, after a panel found she accessed the clinical records of eight patients and a colleague without clinical justification between January and November 2021 — including the records of a child who had died — and was dishonest when first asked about two of them. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only, said she posed no risk to the public, and imposed the short suspension without a review .
Background Information
The accesses spanned nearly a year. The NMC alleged that Haran accessed, without clinical justification, the records of Child D on 26 January 2021, Patient L on 4 June 2021, Patient K on 9 July 2021, Patient E on 17 August 2021, Patient F on 19 August 2021, Child B and Child C on 28 September 2021, Colleague A on 29 September 2021, and Patient J on 14 May 2021 and again on 3 November 2021 .
When the accesses surfaced, the NMC further alleged, Haran initially denied knowing the people whose records she had opened — and offered explanations that did not hold. The dishonesty allegations attached to those denials became the most serious part of the case, because a records access that can be explained is an error, while one that is concealed becomes a question of integrity .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory). The findings below were made by an NMC panel on the balance of probabilities — a civil standard, not a criminal conviction. Haran admitted most of the charges; the panel decided the remainder.
The alleged dishonesty was specific. On 10 November 2021 she was said to have initially denied knowing Child B, Child C, Child D, Patient E, Patient F, Patient K, Patient L and Colleague A; and between 10 November 2021 and 10 October 2023 she was said to have stated that Colleague B had asked her to access Patient E’s record and that Colleague A had asked her to access their own record. Charges 13 and 14 alleged this conduct was dishonest, in that she knew she had accessed records without clinical justification and sought to conceal that she had done so .
The outcome was a detailed split. Haran admitted charges 1 to 9, parts of charge 10, charges 11 and 12, and charges 13 and 14 in relation to the admitted denials. The panel additionally found charges 10e and 10f proved, together with charges 13 and 14 in relation to them. It found charges 10d, 10h, 13 in relation to charges 11 and 12, and 14 in relation to charges 10c, 11 and 12 not proved, accepting her account that Colleague B and Colleague A had asked her to access the records in question, and noting evidence of “a workplace culture in which accessing relatives’ records was treated as acceptable” .
The proved facts amounted to misconduct breaching Code standards 4.2, 5.1, 10.6, 20.1, 20.2, 20.6 and 20.10 — confidentiality and honesty provisions. The panel found limbs b, c and d of the Grant test engaged for her past actions, but concluded she had remediated her practice over four years and that repetition was highly unlikely. Fitness to practise was found currently impaired on public interest grounds only, not on public protection grounds — the panel’s way of saying the record needed marking without finding any ongoing risk .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The sanction is one of the lightest in the NMC’s 2026 suspension list: two months, without a review, and no interim order at all — the panel declined to impose one. In mitigation it credited the ongoing COVID pandemic and the stresses she was facing at the time, the short-lived nature of the dishonesty, developed insight and demonstrated remorse, over four years of positive nursing practice since the misconduct, the workplace culture of the time, and relevant training courses .
The consequence structure matters: the finding exists to mark the record, not to remove a risk. A nurse who opens a dead child’s records without justification, and lies about knowing the child when first asked, would normally face a much harsher outcome; the four years of clean practice and the partial acceptance of her explanations are what kept this case in suspension territory .
No public statement from Haran, her employer or the NMC beyond the determination itself appears in the fetched record.
Current Status
Haran is a suspended nurse serving a two-month suspension imposed on 5 August 2026 at the end of a hearing that ran from 27 July. The order was made without a review, meaning it simply expires; no interim order was imposed. Her registration is impaired on the public interest — the profession’s confidence — rather than public protection, and the panel recorded that repetition was highly unlikely and that she had remediated over four years .
Impact on Their Career/Life
The two-month suspension is a contained consequence, but the findings themselves are permanent: a proved record of accesses to patients’ and a colleague’s confidential records without clinical justification, and proved charges of dishonesty in the denials that followed. In nursing, where confidentiality is a fundamental duty, that combination follows a registrant through every future application.
The case is also a study in how regulators treat time. The accesses were 2021 conduct; the hearing was 2026. The panel explicitly weighed the pandemic context, the workplace culture, and the four years of unblemished practice since — and it credited her candour at hearing enough to reject several of the dishonesty allegations. What survived was enough to mark the record with a suspension, but not enough to end a career .