What is due to be consulted on

The Nursing and Midwifery Council plans a formal consultation from September to December 2026 on a new Code and changes to revalidation, subject to final approval by its Council. It is the first major joint review of both systems in more than a decade. The regulator expects to publish the new Code and revalidation process in October 2027 after analysing responses and completing the remaining regulatory work. Until any commencement date is confirmed, the current Code and requirements continue to apply. An announcement of topics is not an instruction to change portfolios or practise to draft standards.1, 2

The NMC has identified artificial intelligence, anti-racism, health inequalities and professional accountability as areas for discussion. Those subjects reflect changes in care and public expectations since the Code was last revised. Their inclusion does not reveal the final wording or whether each will become a new standalone standard. A concise Code needs principles that apply across four professions, four nations and many settings. Supporting guidance may carry detailed examples, but too much reliance on guidance can make obligations harder to find. Consultation materials should show what belongs in enforceable standards and what is explanatory support.1, 2

Possible revalidation changes include an automatic 12 week extension where a professional has a valid reason and a random verification sample twice its current size. The regulator is also considering accessibility and whether the process provides sufficiently robust assurance. These are proposals for consultation rather than settled rules. The effect of a larger sample depends on how verification is selected, what is checked and how quickly cases are resolved. An extension can reduce unfair loss of registration during illness or other disruption, but criteria and evidence need clarity so decisions are consistent.1, 2

The review follows initial engagement begun in 2025 with professionals, students, employers and the public. Early engagement can define problems before legal drafting, while formal consultation provides a proposal that respondents can assess. The NMC should publish how evidence from each stage changed its thinking. Participants need enough detail to compare options, costs and equality effects. Asking whether people support modernisation is less informative than showing alternative wording and the operational consequence of each choice.1, 2

What the current Code does

The current Code sets professional standards of practice and behaviour for registered nurses, midwives and nursing associates. It is organised around prioritising people, practising effectively, preserving safety and promoting professionalism and trust. These themes apply across clinical, managerial, educational, research and other roles that rely on registration. The Code informs individual practice, education and employer expectations, and it is considered in fitness to practise. It is not a clinical procedure manual and cannot specify every decision. Professionals must combine it with law, evidence, local policy and judgement.3

Prioritising people includes dignity, consent, communication and acting in people’s best interests. Practising effectively includes evidence, records, teamwork, delegation and accountability. Preserving safety addresses competence, risk, emergencies, medicines and raising concerns. Professionalism and trust covers honesty, integrity, leadership and reputation. The themes overlap in real care. A poor digital record may affect communication, safety and accountability at once. Revising the Code should preserve that connected approach rather than create a long list in which new topics appear isolated from the existing duties they influence.3

The Code applies to a registrant’s own decisions even when systems are under pressure. That does not mean organisations can shift every failure onto an individual. Employers control staffing, equipment, training, information systems and work design. A professional should raise and escalate risk, document relevant decisions and work within competence, while organisations must provide safe systems and respond. Consultation language should avoid implying that personal resilience can compensate for structural hazards. It should also make clear that system pressure does not authorise dishonesty, discrimination or practice beyond competence.3

A revised Code needs to be readable for the public as well as professionals. People use it to understand what they can expect and to frame concerns. Technical language may be precise for regulators but inaccessible to someone receiving care. Separate accessible explanations can help, provided they do not alter the standard. Translations and formats should be tested with users. Digital presentation should allow people to find the relevant principle without stripping away context. A searchable fragment can mislead if it is detached from related duties and explanatory material.3

How revalidation works now

Revalidation is the process through which registrants renew every three years. Current requirements include 450 practice hours, or 900 for someone renewing two registrations, 35 hours of continuing professional development with 20 participatory hours, five pieces of practice related feedback, five written reflective accounts, a reflective discussion, health and character declarations, professional indemnity arrangements and confirmation by an appropriate person. The process is intended to support reflection and continued adherence to the Code. It is not a full reassessment of every clinical skill.4

Evidence should come from the professional’s real scope of practice. A nurse in education, policy or management may use different feedback and learning from a ward clinician while still demonstrating connection to the Code. Employers often provide systems and a confirmer, but responsibility to renew remains with the registrant. Agency workers, people on leave and those with portfolio careers can face more difficulty accessing records and discussion. Reform should consider those patterns without creating a lower standard. Clear examples can show equivalent evidence across roles.4

Confidentiality constrains portfolio content. Reflective accounts should not identify patients, service users, colleagues or others. Documents such as incident reports and clinical records should not be copied simply to prove learning. Professionals can describe the issue, action and change without including identifiable detail. Digital portfolio services need appropriate security and retention. Employers should not demand access beyond what is required for confirmation. A review that expands verification must specify how sensitive evidence is protected and what verifiers may retain.4

Confirmation provides a check that the registrant has met the requirements, but it is not an endorsement of every aspect of practice. The confirmer considers the evidence and the registrant makes the online application and declarations. Ambiguity about these roles can lead to superficial meetings or inappropriate refusal. Updated guidance should explain what to do when evidence is incomplete, a conflict exists or an employer relationship ends. Access to an alternative appropriate confirmer is necessary so registration does not depend entirely on one manager.4

New issues the Code must handle

Artificial intelligence already affects documentation, triage, monitoring, education and administrative work. A revised standard should anchor its use in professional accountability, evidence, privacy, equality and human review rather than endorse particular products. A registrant needs to understand the intended use and limits of a tool, verify outputs relevant to care and act when performance is unsafe. Entering confidential information into an unapproved service can create a breach even if the generated text appears useful. Employers must provide governance, training and monitoring, since individual caution cannot make an unvalidated system safe.1, 3

AI can produce plausible but wrong information and can perform differently across groups or settings. Automation bias may lead staff to accept a recommendation that conflicts with clinical evidence. Conversely, rejecting all automated support can also overlook benefit. The professional task is proportionate scrutiny informed by the risk of the decision. Consultation should distinguish tools that draft low risk administrative text from systems influencing diagnosis, prioritisation or treatment. It should clarify documentation when an output materially affects care and the route for reporting errors. Standards should remain valid as technology changes.1, 3

Anti-racism and health inequalities require more than a general instruction to treat people fairly. The Code can expect professionals to recognise discrimination, challenge biased practice, communicate accessibly and consider how social conditions affect care. It must avoid implying that one practitioner can solve structural inequality alone. Employers and educators control recruitment, assessment, rostering, reasonable adjustments and access to services. The standard should describe individual responsibility alongside leadership and escalation. Examples need input from people who experience unequal care and from professionals affected by workplace racism.1, 3

Professional accountability is tested when roles and teams change. Advanced practice, remote care, delegation and cross-organisational working can make responsibility less visible. A Code cannot define every scope, but it can require clarity about competence, role, supervision, handover and escalation. Patients should know who is making a decision. Employers should not use a broad job description to authorise tasks without education and governance. Registrants should be able to explain their reasoning and recognise when another professional or service is needed.1, 3

How to judge the final proposals

Professionals should compare each proposed standard with a real situation from their practice. They can ask whether the wording makes the safe action clearer, whether it is possible across settings and what evidence would show compliance. Concerns should identify the phrase and likely consequence rather than argue only that the Code is too long or too demanding. Patients and carers can test whether the language explains what they should expect. Employers can estimate training, systems and workforce implications, but resource pressure alone should not dilute a standard needed to prevent harm.1, 2, 3, 4

Revalidation options should be judged on assurance, fairness, burden and evidence of benefit. Doubling a random sample sounds more robust, but value depends on what errors are found and whether verification changes practice. The NMC should report sample size, findings, processing time and outcomes without creating a punitive atmosphere that encourages performative portfolios. An extension policy should be accessible before the deadline and should prevent avoidable removal while retaining a clear renewal endpoint. Equality impact analysis should examine who currently struggles to complete the process and why.1, 2, 3, 4

Transition planning needs sufficient notice. Education programmes, employer policies, appraisal systems and digital portfolios may all refer to Code paragraphs and revalidation instructions. The NMC should publish final documents, comparison tables, accessible learning and commencement dates together. Employers should provide paid time for relevant training and update local documents without copying the whole Code into multiple places that become outdated. Students and people returning to practice need targeted explanation. Fitness to practise decisions should be clear about which version applied at the time of conduct.1, 2, 3, 4

The regulator must also demonstrate that it can implement the change while improving its own culture and casework. New standards will not build trust if enquiries, registration and investigations remain difficult to navigate. Programme governance should publish costs, risks and readiness, including capacity for a larger verification sample. External scrutiny and user testing can identify failure before launch. The Code sets expectations for professionals, and the NMC should model comparable openness about its decisions and errors.1, 2, 3, 4

For now, registrants should continue using the current Code and revalidation requirements, keep evidence as usual and watch official NMC channels for the consultation. They do not need to rewrite reflections around unapproved topics or buy new portfolio products. When consultation opens, the central questions will be whether proposed standards are clear, enforceable and relevant, and whether revalidation changes add meaningful assurance without excluding people unfairly. A modernised framework can address new practice while retaining enduring duties to people, safety, effective work and trust.1, 2, 3, 4

Employers should avoid turning early proposals into local mandatory competencies before the evidence and final wording are known. They can instead identify policies likely to need review, budget for training and create time for staff to read and respond. Consultation participation should be available to people on nights, leave, temporary contracts and outside large NHS organisations, not only those able to attend a daytime webinar. Unions, educators and professional networks can convene discussion while preserving individual responses. A consultation that hears from the full range of registered practice is more likely to produce standards that work in a care home, university, community service and independent setting as well as a hospital.1, 2, 3, 4

The NMC should publish response analysis with enough detail to show disagreement as well as majority views. Professional standards are not decided by a simple vote, since evidence, law and public protection also matter. When the regulator chooses a different option from one supported by many respondents, it should explain why. It should also identify changes made after consultation and test revised wording with affected users. That record supports accountability and gives educators and employers a reliable basis for explaining the final framework.1, 2, 3, 4