When St George’s Hospital finally placed senior emergency nurse Mark Barry under direct supervision in 2021, his failings became impossible to ignore. In just a few weeks, he made dozens of serious clinical errors, recorded by supervising staff. These incidents were upheld by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in May this year, finding him guilty of 51 charges going back five years. It suspended him for 12 months.
The pattern of those charges is disturbing. The more oversight Barry was placed under, the more mistakes were identified, opening up the very real possibility that he had been making similar errors the entire time, but that they went unnoticed — and unreported — for years.
Even now, four years later and nearly a decade since the first recorded issue, the hospital refuses to provide any information over what it knew and when, or how it responded to the problem at the time, citing privacy laws.
In what appears to be a textbook case of using data protection legislation to conceal information, the hospital claims it can’t provide any information about how long it took to identify that a senior nurse was making basic and dangerous mistakes because to do so would reveal his personal data. It is a claim we are challenging both directly and through the independent Information Commissioner.
It is understandable that the hospital may not wish to have its failures revealed publicly but from what we have been unable to unearth so far, it is possible that hundreds of patients at St. George’s emergency service were mistreated and those responsible for patient safety have yet to acknowledge or address the situation.
It is not the first, and won’t be the last time that NHS managers have preferred to keep information under wraps to avoid embarrassment rather than address problems upfront and openly and so allow for institutional learning and improvements.
A timeline of missed warnings
The charges upheld against Mr Barry by the NMC stretch back to 2016:
| Year | Number of Charges (Proved) | Level of Supervision |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2 | Unknown |
| 2017 | 3 | Unknown |
| 2018 | 3 | Unknown |
| 2019 | 0 | No recorded incidents |
| 2020 | 5 | Early concerns, light oversight |
| 2021 | 34 | Intensive supervision, direct observation |
The dramatic spike in proven charges in 2021 coincides directly with Barry being placed under close scrutiny, including direct observation and skills assessments by doctors and senior staff.
As the NMC panel itself noted:
“Mr Barry was given multiple opportunities by the Trust for support and improvement … [but] demonstrated no significant improvement.”
In other words, it was only after years of failure and light-touch oversight that the hospital – which serves as the main emergency hospital for Putney and Wandsworth Borough – investigated Barry’s clinical practice, and the results were damning.
What kind of failures?
The NMC’s detailed judgment [pdf] paints a clear picture of systemic poor practice across multiple dimensions of patient care. Here is a breakdown:
| Category | Proved | Not Proved | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Assessment Failures | 25 | 7 | Inadequate histories, forgotten protocols, skipped exams, failed tests. |
| Diagnostic & Treatment Errors | 12 | 2 | Failure to order x-rays, misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatment plans. |
| Documentation Failures | 8 | 1 | Incomplete/falsified records, missed allergy warnings, login misuse. |
| Communication & Conduct | 4 | 1 | Interpreter failures, poor hygiene, early shift exits. |
| Dishonesty Allegations | 0 | 3 | Notably, all were dismissed as incompetence, rather deliberate deception. |
| Health-Related Fitness | 2 | 0 | Private health matters affecting safe practice. |
What did the Hospital do?
We now know through freedom of information requests that the hospital referred Barry to the NMC — but not until 7 January 2022, over a year after the most serious, supervised failings had occurred.
Incredibly, Barry was still allowed to work at the hospital while the NMC process played out, which itself took an additional three years. It is still unclear when he left, or whether he resigned, was suspended, or dismissed. We have asked for those crucial details too.
The Trust has admitted that it did not involve NHS England or any other external bodies during its review of the case.
That means that despite documented evidence of serious failings by a senior nurse stretching back at least six years, the hospital continued to employ him and allow him to treat incoming patients at its emergency room, suggesting a breakdown in patient safety and governance that it has yet to address publicly.
What has the Trust told us?
The Trust has admitted it referred Mr Barry to the NMC but only after years of supervision and recorded complaints. And it has given us a list of what is says were reforms made as a result of the NMC ruling, although we have asked for clarity on when they were introduced.
Despite repeated Freedom of Information (FOI) requests since May, the Trust has so far failed to disclose:
- How many internal investigations or reviews into Barry were conducted
- When those reviews began and ended
- Whether they resulted in formal conclusions or learning
- If those findings were shared internally with the department or leadership
Instead, it has relied on data protection exemptions, claiming all of this is Mr Barry’s personal information.
But the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is now examining the case after the hospital admitted in an internal review that it wrongly applied legal exemptions to our request.
In the hospital’s internal correspondence, released through a separate FOI request, there is explicit reference to “reputational sensitivities” surrounding the Barry case, suggesting the Trust’s legal caution may also be shaped by concern about public backlash or scrutiny.
What are we doing now?
We have now submitted a further FOI request asking for specific, non-personal details:
- The number of reviews undertaken
- When they took place
- Whether any institutional lessons were drawn
These are fundamental questions of patient safety and public accountability. The Trust’s refusal to disclose any internal analysis or action taken not only blocks public scrutiny but may hinder broader learning within the NHS.
Why this matters
Dozens of patients received substandard care. Some may still be unaware. And given how many of Barry’s failings were only spotted under supervision, there could be hundreds more patients whose cases were never reviewed.
It is reasonable to ask: Was this a one-off rogue clinician? Or a system failure years in the making? Until St George’s is willing to open up – or be forced to open up – its own records, we simply won’t know.
If you’ve been affected by this case or wish to share your experience, please contact news@putney.news.
Surely this should be national news? Georges is a major London hospital. Well done for pursuing the hospital and uncovering the scandal.