A midwifery student may receive supportive feedback from one supervisor and a report of unsafe practice from another. Sometimes the accounts concern different shifts or levels of supervision. Sometimes they describe the same event in incompatible ways. The response should identify which kind of disagreement exists before treating the assessment as unfair or attempting to reconcile everything into one story.
Conflicting evidence is not resolved simply by counting favourable and unfavourable witnesses. The useful questions are what each person observed, what they were assessing and how their account relates to the relevant records. A student needs a careful comparison that respects professional judgment while testing factual assumptions and procedural fairness.
Identify the decision under challenge
Obtain the placement assessment, any professionalism report and the university’s letter. Ask whether the disagreement affects an interim restriction, a final placement result, progression or a student fitness-to-practise investigation. Record the applicable procedure and deadline for each decision.
A pre-registration student’s university process, an Education Law matter, is distinct from NMC proceedings against a registered midwife, which fall under Professional Disciplinary Proceedings. If the student already holds nursing registration, identify that separately when seeking advice. Do not assume that resolving an assessment disagreement automatically disposes of a separate allegation about conduct, or that a fitness-to-practise response replaces an academic appeal.
Define the actual conflicts
Prepare a comparison, the evidence-led method central to Dispute Resolution, showing the issue, each account, its date and the source of the information Distinguish a factual conflict from different evaluations. One supervisor may say that the student contacted the coordinator; another may accept that contact occurred but consider the communication inadequate. Those are different questions.
Also separate disagreement from incompleteness. An observer who left the room may have no knowledge of a later conversation. A supervisor reporting that they did not witness an escalation is not necessarily saying that no escalation occurred. Ask for clarification where the university’s summary has converted a limited observation into a broader conclusion.
Check whether the supervisors assessed the same work
Compare the clinical setting, patient circumstances, task and level of supervision. Positive feedback on a routine appointment may not contradict a concern arising during a more complex episode. A student may perform a task safely with direct guidance but still need development before undertaking it with less support.
Identify the programme outcome each assessor considered and the expected level at that stage. Avoid relying on a general statement that the student was “lovely to work with” as an answer to a specific clinical concern. It may be relevant to interpersonal conduct while saying little about recognition, documentation or escalation in the incident under investigation.
Understand the practice assessor’s role
The NMC explains that practice assessors draw on multiple sources, including discussions with practice supervisors, and need not personally observe every aspect of practice. An assessment is therefore not automatically invalid because the final assessor was absent from the disputed shift.
The relevant questions are what evidence the assessor obtained, how its reliability was considered and how the decision was reached. Ask whether contradictory information was put before them and whether the student’s explanation was available. If the assessment relies heavily on a brief second-hand summary, identify the missing primary account and explain why it could affect the conclusion.
Reconstruct the incident independently of opinion
Use the rota, placement allocation, contemporaneous notes and properly obtained clinical records to establish the sequence. Identify who was present at each stage and who joined later. Distinguish what the student personally recalls from what they learned during the investigation.
The purpose is not to assume that written records are always correct. A note may be late, incomplete or based on another person’s report. Ask about its author and timing where those matters are important. Compare all sources carefully and identify the limits of what can be established, especially if no record captures a disputed verbal instruction.
Examine different instructions fairly
A student may have been told to work more independently by one supervisor and criticised for doing so by another. Identify the exact task and the terms of each instruction. Different patients, changing circumstances or different demonstrated competence may explain an apparent inconsistency.
Where the instructions were genuinely incompatible, explain when the student recognised the difficulty and whether clarification was sought. Avoid a broad claim that following any supervisor’s instruction removes personal responsibility. The question is how a student at that stage could reasonably understand and act within the supervision arrangements, including when they should have asked for further guidance.
Ask how concerns were communicated during placement
Build a timeline of interim reviews, feedback discussions and action plans. Identify whether the serious concern appeared for the first time in the final report or whether it had been discussed earlier in different language. Preserve the student’s requests for explanation or additional observed opportunities.
The NMC’s guidance on objective and fair assessment addresses the reliability of evidence and concerns about the learning environment. Apply that to the records: did the student have usable feedback, a clear opportunity to improve and an assessment based on the relevant evidence? A lack of warning may be important, but it does not itself demonstrate that the student met the clinical standard.
Raise bias or discrimination with particulars
If the student believes personal hostility or discriminatory treatment affected an account, identify the specific conduct, dates, witnesses and documents. Explain how it may have influenced the evidence or assessment. A serious concern deserves a clear factual basis rather than an assertion made only because the outcome was unfavourable.
Ask how a related complaint will be managed alongside the placement decision. Do not assume that making a complaint automatically disqualifies a supervisor’s evidence or stops fitness-to-practise proceedings. Equally, a material concern about reliability should not disappear simply because it is being considered through a different university route. Request clarity about how the processes will communicate relevant findings.
Handle witnesses through the proper process
Tell the investigator which people may have relevant information and what they can address. Follow any directions about contact and avoid asking colleagues to support a prewritten narrative. A witness should give their own account, including limits to recollection and matters they did not observe.
Parents should not approach supervisors or other students to secure statements. Their support is better directed towards organising the evidence, attending authorised meetings and helping the student manage the stress. If the student has already received informal supportive messages, preserve them intact and ask whether the author can provide a properly attributed account through the investigation.
Offer a way to resolve the remaining uncertainty
Where the issue concerns current competence, a further properly structured observation may be more informative than another exchange of general opinions. Explain which skill needs assessment, the appropriate supervision and what criterion should be used. The university must determine whether such an opportunity is appropriate under its rules.
Where the issue is a historical factual allegation, additional assessment may not resolve what happened. Request the missing witness account, clarification or record instead. Keep those two objectives distinct: establishing the incident and assessing current ability. A learning proposal should not be treated as an admission of disputed facts unless the student intends to make that admission.
Prepare a concise statement and requested outcome
Organise the statement around the material conflicts, with references to the evidence. Explain why each difference matters to the decision. Avoid reproducing every positive comment or attacking every minor inconsistency. Small differences in wording may be unsurprising and unrelated to the central allegation.
State the outcome sought: reconsideration using the complete evidence, a fresh assessment, review of restrictions or another remedy permitted by the procedure. If there is a final adverse decision, compare its reasons with the conflicts raised and check appeal grounds promptly, a core Education Law step. A clear record of unanswered material issues is more useful than a general assertion that nobody listened.
How Aldwych Legal can assist
Adam Hussain’s education experience includes placement disputes, academic appeals and student fitness-to-practise proceedings. Aldwych Legal can help midwifery students compare supervisor accounts, identify the difference between conflicting facts and differing professional judgments, and prepare focused representations about assessment and support.
Email info@aldwychlegal.com or call or WhatsApp 020 4584 2472 with the placement report, review records and next deadline. Identify any related complaint and explain which clinical documents require secure handling before sending them.
About Adam Hussain
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s Founder & Managing Director and principal lawyer. His education work includes placement disputes, academic appeals and student fitness-to-practise proceedings. Assistance focuses on material conflicts in accounts, the assessor’s evidence and appropriate review requests. He holds an LL.M. in International Business Law from King’s College London, has completed Bar training and Practical Legal Training, and is a PhD doctoral researcher in Legal Science at Royal Holloway, University of London.
