UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[Sweeper2000]

The nhs runs through “trusts” which operationally is no different from a private company. They just get their funds through a centralised entity ie government rather than paying customers. The ceo will generally be the contact between these high level organisations at the golf club or other place and leave the running of the place to his lieutenants ie managers.

in more basic terms he is the general of the army but the army is run by sergeants. He makes the plans and his staff see the plan through.

 

[Dotta]

The nhs runs through “trusts” which operationally is no different from a private company. They just get their funds through a centralised entity ie government rather than paying customers. The ceo will generally be the contact between these high level organisations at the golf club or other place and leave the running of the place to his lieutenants ie managers.

in more basic terms he is the general of the army but the army is run by sergeants. He makes the plans and his staff see the plan through.

What has "a golf club" got anything with this hospital??

Oh well, I live in a different country so I guess "cultural differences" cause my complete bewilderment.

Too bad

JMO

 

[esther43]

Well yes, A good caring CEO would do that and it absolutely is the right thing to do. I hope he does it, I'd have more respect for him for holding his hands up and saying he made some bad executive decisions. Those decisions wouldn't have just been his though, he'd have the chair of the board above him and the medical director below him.
As I understand it, the med director and the CEO remained United but there was a fall out with the board.
I notice the medical director took early retirement aged just 59.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What has "a golf club" got anything with this hospital??

Oh well, I live in a different country so I guess "cultural differences" cause my complete bewilderment.

Too bad

JMO

i Think there maybe a misunderstanding of language here Dotta. A club is a group of people rather than the The golf clubs one uses when playing golf. It would be a normal part of High level work relationships where you have to wine and dine whoever you are meeting. The golf club is generally seen to be a classy place where you can impress people and ensure pleasant surroundings. Depending on certain things its probably normal for the ceo or top man to have meetings with outside agencies and the ceo would probably want to impress.

 

[esther43]

Well yes, A good caring CEO would do that and it absolutely is the right thing to do. I hope he does it, I'd have more respect for him for holding his hands up and saying he made some bad executive decisions. Those decisions wouldn't have just been his though, he'd have the chair of the board above him and the medical director below him.
As I understand it, the med director and the CEO remained United but there was a fall out with the board.
I notice the medical director took early retirement aged just 59.

What has "a golf club" got anything with this hospital??

Oh well, I live in a different country so I guess "cultural differences" cause my complete bewilderment.

Too bad

JMO

i Think there maybe a misunderstanding of language here Dotta. A club is a group of people rather than the The golf clubs one uses when playing golf. It would be a normal part of High level work relationships where you have to wine and dine whoever you are meeting. The golf club is generally seen to be a classy place where you can impress people and ensure pleasant surroundings. Depending on certain things its probably normal for the ceo or top man to have meetings with outside agencies and the ceo would probably want to impress.

I think what I'm saying is, when you are up that high in the hierarchy, you are going to be the people who are responsible for recruiting the HR. So a lot of conversations, I would imagine happen at the golf club. Where the three figure salaried people have a membership, for golf.
As well as at the hospital of course, with the HR.

 

[Dotta]

i Think there maybe a misunderstanding of language here Dotta. A club is a group of people rather than the The golf clubs one uses when playing golf. It would be a normal part of High level work relationships where you have to wine and dine whoever you are meeting. The golf club is generally seen to be a classy place where you can impress people and ensure pleasant surroundings. Depending on certain things its probably normal for the ceo or top man to have meetings with outside agencies and the ceo would probably want to impress.

Oh, I see.
It reminds me of the expression "Greek life" in American Universities I read about in Idaho4 thread.

Well, every country is unique and has unique customs and traditions.

Phew!
I know nothing about golf by the way.
Football is the King!

JMO

 

[esther43]

I think what I'm saying is, when you are up that high in the hierarchy, you are going to be the people who are responsible for recruiting the HR. So a lot of conversations, I would imagine happen at the golf club. Where the three figure salaried people have a membership, for golf.
As well as at the hospital of course, with the HR.

Oh, I see.
It reminds me of the expression "Greek life" in American Universities I read about in Idaho4 thread.

Well, every country is unique and has unique customs and traditions.

Phew!
I know nothing about golf by the way.
Football is the King!

JMO

Trust me.. you are not missing anything!
Have you heard of the expression 'an old boys club' ?- I think that's the universal term!

 

[Dotta]

Trust me.. you are not missing anything!
Have you heard of the expression 'an old boys club' ?- I think that's the universal term!

Don't worry.
We girls can organize our own Clubs, and let Ol' Boys go green with envy haha
Not to mention their eyes popping
Cheers!

 

[DizzyBee]

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly.

I have witnessed chaotically managed emergencies. It all depends on the co-ordinator, doctors and the skill mix of the staff at the event. A poorly managed department could easily make drug errors, fail to record essential information, and collapse under pressure. Quality training and an ongoing commitment to improvement/a culture of learning is essential and it depends so much upon good leadership and a healthy workplace culture. I can see how this could happen without it being malicious. I can also understand how some of the things that come across as ‘shocking’ to non-medics (texting casually amidst very sick babies, making off colour remarks etc) can and do happen. Compassion fatigue is very real in the NHS and dark humour has always been a coping strategy.

 

[Dotta]

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly.

I have witnessed chaotically managed emergencies. It all depends on the co-ordinator, doctors and the skill mix of the staff at the event. A poorly managed department could easily make drug errors, fail to record essential information, and collapse under pressure. Quality training and an ongoing commitment to improvement/a culture of learning is essential and it depends so much upon good leadership and a healthy workplace culture. I can see how this could happen without it being malicious. I can also understand how some of the things that come across as ‘shocking’ to non-medics (texting casually amidst very sick babies, making off colour remarks etc) can and do happen. Compassion fatigue is very real in the NHS and dark humour has always been a coping strategy.

I guess there are hundreds hospitals and thousands nurses/other medical staff working in conditions mentioned.

And yet,
There is only one trial with a defendant accused of murders/attempted murders.

Is this CoC Hospital so different from others?

I don't know.

JMO

 

[MsBetsy]

This unit was not a private enterprise with a few nurses and doctors.

It is part of National Health SERVICE - service as SERVING good people of Chester, right?

Somebody heads this institution, is responsible for everything running smoothly and MOSTLY ensuring the good care for PATIENTS.

And these people should have a lot to say during the trial.
Explain to the public what went wrong.

That is a leader's task.
A good, caring, responsible CEO/s.

That is how I understand these matters.

JMO

Most of the people that have testified so far have been actual witnesses to each event.

Board members wouldn't have been in the hospital ward or 'witnesses' to the collapses and deaths so maybe that's why they haven't given evidence?

Didn't Dr. J say the directors told him it might be seen as 'bullying' if the hospital confronted Letby about their concerns without any proof?

Maybe whoever said that to him will testify...

 

[katydid23]

You know,
With sooo many trainings I have had at my workplace (school) I still remember the one about mental problems of youths, especially self harming.
Some cut themselves to find distraction from the mental pain.

And I wonder -
what if somebody hurts others, not oneself, to find relief from this tumult in one's mind?

To distract oneself, to be able to think about dancing, joy again?
To get rid of terrible thoughts?

Can somebody hurt oneself "by proxy"?

Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSP) is a mental illness in which a person acts as if an individual he or she is caring for has a physical or mental illness when the person is not really sick.

• What is factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA)?​

  ...they might act as though their child or dependent has a medical condition that needs attention. However, the child or dependent person isn’t sick. People with factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) lie about an illness in another person. This other person is usually someone in their care — often a child under the age of 6. In some cases, the dependent person can be another adult, disabled person or an elderly person.
  
  

  What is the motivation behind factitious disorder imposed on another?​

  There may be many different reasons why someone with factitious disorder imposed on another might seek unnecessary medical treatment for a child or dependent. Often, people with FDIA have an inner need for their child (or other dependent person) to be seen as ill or injured. This isn’t done to achieve a concrete benefit, like financial gain. It’s is often done in order to gain the sympathy and special attention given to people who are truly ill and their families.

There are certain characteristics that are common in a person with FDIA, including:

• Being a parent, usually a mother, but the person can also be the adult child of an elderly patient, spouse or caretaker of a disabled adult.
• Sometimes being a healthcare professional or having medical knowledge.
• Being very friendly and cooperative with the healthcare providers.
• Appearing to be quite concerned — some might seem overly concerned — about their child or designated patient.
• Possibly also suffering from factitious disorder imposed on self. This is a related disorder in which the caregiver repeatedly acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she has caused the symptoms.

Factitious Disorder (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy): What Is It & Symptoms

Learn about factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) from the Cleveland Clinic. Find out about this mental illness, including symptoms, treatment and more.

my.clevelandclinic.org

JMO

 

[JosieJo]

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly.

I have witnessed chaotically managed emergencies. It all depends on the co-ordinator, doctors and the skill mix of the staff at the event. A poorly managed department could easily make drug errors, fail to record essential information, and collapse under pressure. Quality training and an ongoing commitment to improvement/a culture of learning is essential and it depends so much upon good leadership and a healthy workplace culture. I can see how this could happen without it being malicious. I can also understand how some of the things that come across as ‘shocking’ to non-medics (texting casually amidst very sick babies, making off colour remarks etc) can and do happen. Compassion fatigue is very real in the NHS and dark humour has always been a coping strategy.

I agree about the dark humour it's common

LL had had training though , she had undergone the additional neonatal nurse course ..plus none of the witnesses have said there was a lack of training on the unit.

These were mostly very sudden unexpected collapses without any obvious reason...regardless of how well the emergency was handled

I cant see how large doses of insulin that were not prescribed and given via a route never ever used for insulin.. on 2 babies can be down to being a poorly ran unit

 

[marynnu]

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly.

I have witnessed chaotically managed emergencies. It all depends on the co-ordinator, doctors and the skill mix of the staff at the event. A poorly managed department could easily make drug errors, fail to record essential information, and collapse under pressure. Quality training and an ongoing commitment to improvement/a culture of learning is essential and it depends so much upon good leadership and a healthy workplace culture. I can see how this could happen without it being malicious. I can also understand how some of the things that come across as ‘shocking’ to non-medics (texting casually amidst very sick babies, making off colour remarks etc) can and do happen. Compassion fatigue is very real in the NHS and dark humour has always been a coping strategy.

Welcome Dizzy!

Regarding your post, I'm not sure the concept of mismanagement and/or incompetence stands up too well. Have you seen the report by the RCN and Royal College of Physicians? Though they make many suggestions for improvement, they could find nothing to explain the incidents in question.

 

[Tortoise]

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly. <rsbm>

The two scenarios are the cases of the prosecution and the defence.

That babies were variously pumped with air and milk which expanded their stomachs and suffocated them, had air injected into their lines, were assaulted, had insulin put in their feeds, to name the most common allegations - versus the defence case - which is that sub-optimal care on the unit led to spontaneous bleeding, babies not responding to CPR, sudden near-fatal collapses, and hypoglycaemia, when LL was present. We have yet to hear of other babies, not in LL's presence, suffering the same fates. The defence case isn't that LL made mistakes, or was out of her depth.

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/LucyLetbyTrial

I find it interesting that the other nurse thinks Dr A likes her, and thought they were flirty, but LL asks if he's being odd. She hasn't detected what seems obvious to an observer, and thinks he's being odd, and talks about her own thoughts about him only. The other nurse isn't referring to his text, she's referring to what she already noticed. I think it's a good example of LL not perceiving others, just like when he bought her chocolate and she said it was a shame she doesn't usually eat chocolate, and the very similar accounts of her not being able to place herself in the shoes of the parents and shocking them with her inconsideration.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Lucy Letby: How Authorities Zeroed in on British Nurse Accused of Murdering Infants in Neonatal Unit - PEOPLE

Lucy Letby: How Authorities Zeroed in on British Nurse Accused of Murdering Infants in Neonatal Unit — People

Lucy Letby allegedly murdered seven infants at Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016

t.co

Citing a July 2016 report by the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, in June 2015, a senior doctor at the Countess of Chester Hospital reportedly started to grow concerned over the surge in "unexplained" or "unexpected" deaths of newborns occurring in the neonatal unit, according to local news outlet the Hereford Times.


During Letby's trial, the BBC reports Dr. Ravi Jayaram told the court he brought the suspicious deaths and near-deaths to the attention of the hospital's senior director of nursing in the fall of 2015, but, he said, his concerns were overlooked.


Then, in February 2016, Jayaram said he alerted the hospital's medical director of the suspicious incidents surrounding Letby. Jayaram alleged he went on to request a meeting with the director but was ignored for three months.


"We were getting a reasonable amount of pressure from senior management at the hospital not to make a fuss," Jayaram testified, per the BBC.


Jayaram said he personally witnessed Letby standing over an infant with the baby's breathing tube dislodged. He alleged she stopped and watched as the baby's blood oxygen levels dropped at a dangerous rate, prompting him to intervene and administer CPR. The infant died three days later.


Lucy Letby: police found note saying ‘I killed them on purpose’, court hears


Letby was moved from the neonatal ward in June 2016, the court heard, after consultants suspected “that the deaths and life-threatening collapses of these 17 children were not medically explicable” and were the result of “the actions of Lucy Letby”. She was moved to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children, Johnson said.


Myers, defending, said there was no evidence of Letby hurting the babies and that the prosecution case was “driven by the assumption that someone was doing deliberate harm … combined with the coincidence on certain occasions of Miss Letby’s presence”.


He added: “What it isn’t driven by is evidence of Miss Letby actually doing what is alleged against her.” The barrister told jurors it would be “staggeringly unfair” to convict a person without a word of evidence.

 

[Passiton]

WTH???

It has been one of the creepiest things I heard during this trial.

And this is a NURSE talking about a PATIENT??

Again words fail me
(and it doesn't happen often).


JMO

Tbh I think what we are getting here is a v sanitised exposure of how some people who are exposed to really hard, traumatic things on a daily basis talk to each other about their work in order to cope. These texts/messages from LL and her colleagues may not be professional but tbh whenever they come up I get so tense waiting for the other shoe to drop and for something truly glib to be said (in my experience, ‘gallows humour’ can manifest itself in environments like this and tbh I don’t see much evidence of that here).

If innocent and if, rightly or wrongly, LL did genuinely believe that the baby was going to die, then this reaction seems normal to me. What I would then question is why she feels that so strongly and what is she going to do about it? That baby needs your help, not your sad face emojis.

<modsnip - sub judice. Guilt or innocence is not to be discussed>

 

[Passiton]

You know,
With sooo many trainings I have had at my workplace (school) I still remember the one about mental problems of youths, especially self harming.
Some cut themselves to find distraction from the mental pain.

And I wonder -
what if somebody hurts others, not oneself, to find relief from this tumult in one's mind?

To distract oneself, to be able to think about dancing, joy again?
To get rid of terrible thoughts?

Can somebody hurt oneself "by proxy"?

New to this thread so I may be rehashing old ground but I still can’t work out how I feel about this. The way I see it, there are two possible scenarios:
A) Genuine malice, intent, murder
B) An overworked, under-supported nurse making stupid mistakes, who probably didn’t even realise how out of her depth she was, who has been scapegoated by a poorly managed department
Or some combination of the two possibly.

I have witnessed chaotically managed emergencies. It all depends on the co-ordinator, doctors and the skill mix of the staff at the event. A poorly managed department could easily make drug errors, fail to record essential information, and collapse under pressure. Quality training and an ongoing commitment to improvement/a culture of learning is essential and it depends so much upon good leadership and a healthy workplace culture. I can see how this could happen without it being malicious. I can also understand how some of the things that come across as ‘shocking’ to non-medics (texting casually amidst very sick babies, making off colour remarks etc) can and do happen. Compassion fatigue is very real in the NHS and dark humour has always been a coping strategy.

Thank you - I have just posted something very similar but this articulates my point much better. I don’t think the scapegoating even needs to be malicious, it looks to me like an all round ‘hands off’ nobody wanting to take accountability for an increasingly out of control situation and if blame can legitimately be placed on LL, I absolutely would expect and want that working environment to also put its hands up and say ‘okay we’re not blameless here’ so that the right charges could be sought and this could all be resolved with the least suffering involved for everybody. But it just doesn’t seem the conditions we needed for that to happen existed at the time. All JMO of course and if true, I want to know what next steps the Trust will/has already taken. I just worry that in today’s climate, that again is all going to be very difficult to do, which will give more credence to cries of ‘scapegoat’ if she is found guilty.

 

[ColourPurple]

Tbh I think what we are getting here is a v sanitised exposure of how some people who are exposed to really hard, traumatic things on a daily basis talk to each other about their work in order to cope. These texts/messages from LL and her colleagues may not be professional but tbh whenever they come up I get so tense waiting for the other shoe to drop and for something truly glib to be said (in my experience, ‘gallows humour’ can manifest itself in environments like this and tbh I don’t see much evidence of that here).

If innocent and if, rightly or wrongly, LL did genuinely believe that the baby was going to die, then this reaction seems normal to me. What I would then question is why she feels that so strongly and what is she going to do about it? That baby needs your help, not your sad face emojis.
<modsnip - sub judice - guilt or innocence is not to be discussed>

I think they've "stuck their heels in" as you call it, because you dont allegedly accidentally bypass the safety systems that are in place to stop air being injected into babies,and end up injecting air into them , and you don't allegedly accidentally add insulin to babies' TPN bags. Even LL has agreed that the insulin poisoning can not have been done accidentally.Whether it was LL who was responsible for those alleged offences, the jury will decide.

The prosecution have also outlined many patterns- babies collapsing just after their designated nurse leaves, babies collapsing just after the parents who were by their side all day leave, babies collapsing just as they were due to go home or be transfered to another hospital, babies coillapsing on significant dates like their due date or 100 day birthday- to name just a few patterns. And the one thing all those collapses have in common? LL's presence!

We are, of course yet to hear fully from the defence but IMO, as somebody who started following the trial from scratch, with no preconceived idea of what might have happened, I think the prosecution have presented a strong case so far. It will be interesting to see what the jury think.

And IMO this really has nothing to do with gallows humour or dark humour. I don't think we've seen a single example of that so far in the trial. The reason the doctor was surprised by LL saying "He's not leaving here alive is he" was because the doctor was expecting the baby to recover. He was not expecting him to collapse and die... which is another pattern the prosecution have highlighted... babies who were not expected to die, suddenly collapsing, not responding to normal resus attempts, and dying... allegedly only when LL was on shift.


All IMO