After months of pressure, St George’s Hospital has confirmed it made changes to staff supervision and training in the wake of the Mark Barry case — a senior emergency nurse suspended for repeat and serious failures in patient care — in an effort to prevent it from happening in future.
However, questions still remain over how the hospital handled the case, including when it first found out about Mr Barry’s behaviour, how it responded, how long he was allowed to put patients at risk, and whether the hospital failed to recognise, or take seriously, internal warnings.
A Band 7 Emergency Nurse Practitioner, Barry was suspended for 12 months by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in March 2025. The ruling [pdf] followed years of serious errors that put patients at risk — including missed diagnoses, falsified records, and failure to carry out or document key procedures. The NMC found more than 60 clinical failings and said Barry posed an ongoing risk to patients, citing a lack of competence, misconduct, and health-related concerns.
Barry worked in the Emergency Department at St George’s Hospital in Tooting — the primary trauma centre for South West London, and the main A&E for residents of Putney, Roehampton and Wandsworth.
What is a Band 7 nurse?
Band 7 Emergency Nurse Practitioners are among the most senior clinical staff in NHS emergency departments. They are expected to work autonomously — diagnosing, treating, and discharging patients without supervision. The role carries significant responsibility, with Band 7 nurses often managing complex cases and mentoring junior colleagues.
In Barry’s case, it was this very independence that made his prolonged failings so alarming — and raises critical questions about how such issues went unchecked.
What has the hospital done since?
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has now released details — through a Freedom of Information request — of reforms it says were introduced in direct response to the Barry case. These include:
- More structured clinical supervision: All new trainee Emergency Practitioners (EPs) and Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) now receive monthly mentorship meetings, with a formal tripartite review system. Fully qualified EPs have at least two formal reviews a year.
- Clearer expectations: All EPs have been given updated competency frameworks, with staff handbooks and clinical guidelines now readily accessible on an internal system.
- Regular peer teaching: The Trust has introduced twice-monthly educational sessions where staff review complex cases, share lessons, and host teaching sessions from external experts.
- Tighter documentation audits: A new auditing template has been relaunched to check clinical records more thoroughly, in line with national guidance.
- Dedicated mentors for new staff: A system of named mentors is now in place to ensure new emergency staff are properly supported and monitored.
The Trust also confirmed that affected patients identified in the NMC report had been contacted and offered follow-up support.
Is it enough?
While these actions are a step forward, there are questions about whether they go far enough — or should have been in place already. The NMC panel found that Barry was given multiple opportunities over several years to improve his practice, but continued to endanger patients. As a senior nurse operating independently in A&E, his repeated failures raise serious concerns about oversight and performance monitoring at the Trust.
Although the reforms may improve training and documentation, they focus primarily on new or trainee staff. It remains unclear what systems are now in place to assess the ongoing competence of senior practitioners — like Barry — who are expected to make critical clinical decisions without direct supervision. That lack of clarity is part of what continues to undermine public confidence.
Why is the rest still secret?
Despite these disclosures, the Trust has refused to say what it knew about Barry’s performance before the NMC ruling, whether it had conducted its own internal investigations, or when it first became aware of the extent of the failings. It also won’t reveal whether it first drew the NMC’s attention to Barry, or whether the action came from elsewhere.
The Trust claims it cannot confirm or deny any of this because doing so might reveal “personal data” — even though the clinician is already publicly named and sanctioned by the NMC, and the request relates to the hospital’s institutional response, not private HR records.
This refusal came despite repeated efforts over the past two months by Putney.news to seek basic transparency. The final decision — made after an internal review — was to continue withholding all information about what the Trust did before and after the NMC ruling, apart from the partial summary outlined above.
Complaint to the ICO
Putney.news has now referred the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK’s independent regulator for data and information rights. The complaint argues that the Trust is misapplying data protection law to shield itself from scrutiny and avoid answering reasonable public interest questions — such as when it knew about Barry’s failings, what action it took, and how lessons were learned.
The ICO has the power to review FOI refusals and can compel public bodies to release information where disclosure is justified. A decision is expected in the coming months.
St George’s Hospital is currently rated “Requires Improvement” by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which has raised concerns about patient safety in its emergency department. It is the main NHS provider for tens of thousands of residents across South West London.
If you’ve been affected by this case or wish to share your experience, please contact news@putney.news.
