NHS Trust IT blunder overwrites 11 years of maternity records

28 replies

SerendipityJane · 22/09/2026 15:30

One can't help but speculate whether it would have been treated so lightly had it not been a womens issue ?

https://www.theregister.com/databases/2026/09/22/nhs-trust-it-blunder-overwrites-11-years-of-maternity-records/5298130

NUH has been unable to completely restore the audit history showing who viewed maternity records during the 11-year period covered by the database. That means the Trust may now be unable, in most cases, to establish whether a particular person looked at a patient's maternity record between September 2011 and November 2022.

NHS Trust IT blunder overwrites 11 years of maternity records

Human error sent reused instructions at the wrong database, taking historical access logs with it

https://www.theregister.com/databases/2026/09/22/nhs-trust-it-blunder-overwrites-11-years-of-maternity-records/5298130

OP posts:

Trumpisacunt · 30/09/2026 13:53

fsfdl · 22/09/2026 20:31

If you’ve ever had to ring IT support in a NHS hospital like NUH you would have no trouble believing this level of cock up.

Yep,I work for NUH...

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · 30/09/2026 15:30

SerendipityJane · 30/09/2026 12:38

As noted the data was restored. And if that was the metric then it was a successful backup.

What was not restored was the additional data about who had accessed what and when. Which clearly was not treated as being integral, but adjacent to the patient data.

I can see this has raised some worries for some. However I'd like to calm those fears by promising that no one will be held accountable. That would set a terrible precedent.

Show quote history

It was not a successful backup as it was incomplete. They obviously missed backing up the table in the database that held data about who had accessed what and when.

Original poster

SerendipityJane · 30/09/2026 16:12

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · 30/09/2026 15:30

It was not a successful backup as it was incomplete. They obviously missed backing up the table in the database that held data about who had accessed what and when.

Show quote history

I think it was stored separately, which does make sense. But if the people running the show haven't the first idea of that (which is quite possible) then it's easy to see a chain of incompetence that ends up with that second database being overlooked.

But as I said, it's not really a big deal. So no need for anyone to be punished. As long as lessons are learned.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2