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

[Sundial]

Exactly..most if not all hospitals have mandatory training on confidentiality which is renewed every few years for all staff

This ^^^

 

[Sundial]

Hospitals are bound by the Caldicot Principles and will Have a named Caldicot Guardian..usually a Senior Director

Principle 5 says every member of staff should be aware

The Caldicott Principles

Eight principles to ensure people's information is kept confidential and used appropriately.

www.gov.uk

This was along the lines of what I was after last night. There is plenty of information on the topic out there but some comments rejecting the whole confidentiality thing is a bit bonkers imo. The Caldicott principles also do form part of training in many universities on courses not just related to nursing too.

JMO

 

[Cluedoneit]

I'm not sure that the first part is correct, as such. I don't think there is any actual offence she commits by keeping these things. Her employer has various duties under the various data protection regulations but not an employee personally, I don't think.

It is undoubtedly a professional standards matter, though.

Section 170: Unlawful obtaining etc of personal data​

Section 170 of the Act builds on section 55 DPA 1998 which criminalised knowingly or recklessly obtaining, disclosing or procuring personal data without the consent of the data controller. Section 170 adds the offence of knowingly or recklessly retaining personal data (which may have been lawfully obtained) without the consent of the data controller.

Data Protection Act 2018 - Criminal Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

The exact law she broke is in bold. Hope this helps

 

[Sundial]

Section 170: Unlawful obtaining etc of personal data​

Section 170 of the Act builds on section 55 DPA 1998 which criminalised knowingly or recklessly obtaining, disclosing or procuring personal data without the consent of the data controller. Section 170 adds the offence of knowingly or recklessly retaining personal data (which may have been lawfully obtained) without the consent of the data controller.

Data Protection Act 2018 - Criminal Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

The exact law she broke is in bold. Hope this helps

Amen.

 

[Legal]

IMO the prosecution had to address the crying at the outset as she was already crying when he started the cross-examination! If he didn't address it, it is highly likely she would use it as a delaying tactic every time he asked a difficult question. <modsnip>

I'm thinking he may not discuss all the babies in order because I think the prosecution like to keep the defendant on their toes, jumping from one topic to another, so the defendant cannot predict what the next question will be and try to plan their answer. He will try to catch her out in her alleged lies.

Today will be interesting!

 

[Parker Knoll]

NJ had to address it immediately as you quite rightly say Legal.
She was already in tears when he first stood up to cross examine if the reporting is correct on that point.

 

[marynnu]

Mr Johnson asks why Letby kept bringing handover sheets home. Letby said it was a few.
Mr Johnson: "Well, 250 times, it isn't"
Letby: "That is over many years"
Mr Johnson: "Well even if it's 50, that's over five years."
Mr Johnson: "What is your normal practice?"
Letby: "With handover sheets? To dispose of them - they have come home with me."
Mr Johnson: "You have taken them home."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, May 17 - defence continues

I have to commend Mr Johnson for picking up on LL's avoidance of responsibility here. She speaks as if the handover sheets had legs and skipped along beside her.

I've heard the handover sheets are getting a publishing deal & possibly starring in a film.

 

[ColourPurple]

Where exactly they were “ stored “ in her house / flat / parents is immaterial in any real sense of the word.
Her argument holds no weight whatsoever and just adds insult to injury that not only were they there in the first place SHE saw fit to dump them in a bin bag in the garage, under her bed and in her Morrisons bag for life.
We could argue this until Christmas …. you don’t have to be a GDPR expert to know that this was wholly wrong on every single level.

Exactly. I can't believe there are pages and pages even discussing it (I say as I add to the discussion lol) And as for whether her house was a "safe space" if that were even a thing, or if it was OK cos she lived alone... well, we already know of various people who've been to her house, including her dad, Doc Choc and whoever went to her housewarming party..

 

[marynnu]

It’s not just that either; key policy makers, the nmc, trust protocols etc; don’t know what people’s intentions might be, who can get hold of them etc; all it takes is ONE mistake and boom; you’ve exposed your patients (even just one) medical information to the world.
When I first joined uni, there was an example of this and they use it even in todays world in training; where a student had left medical notes (including a handover) in their bag on the bus. Another example was students discussing patients whilst in a coffee shop after work with a colleague. There was a member of the public sitting right behind them who was able to identify the student, their year of training, where they worked and what they were saying and reported it to the university.

The university actually said in this instance, it was a concerned member of the public who was mortified that had they have known said patients or have been their family- can you imagine hearing that? Discussion on private and personal, sensitive data being overheard, kept or lazily disregarded whether intentional or not.
Whether this is a student, trained nurse, confidential patient handover sheets or general discussions in a coffee shop- they cannot make it any more clearer if they tried even very early on in training- just DO not do it.

Staff have been taught this from the year dot, I imagine. I was, and I trained 1978-81!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I've heard the handover sheets are getting a publishing deal & possibly starring in a film.

A "Shredded Hand-Over Films" production...
A Myers/Johnson film......
Based on the best seller by HM CPS

 

[Sundial]

Staff have been taught this from the year dot, I imagine. I was, and I trained 1978-81!

Exactly, it’s been around a while. Even in university essay papers, they ask you to give an example of a case study you have worked with, but to NEVER disclose patient’s information in your work. To write instead; patient A for example (as we see in the trial), those marking you work should never be able to identify the person, and for the same reasons as discussed upthread- the same applies with confidential information. It’s all taught very early on in various health/social care sectors and other professions (whether at uni or not), forms part of induction training, competencies etc etc, the list is endless really. Particularly as a health professional (specifically a nurse in this case)- one must be living under a rock if you don’t know this stuff.

Moo

 

[Cluedoneit]

Well he had 3 questions yesterday.
1. Called her a self centred narcissist
2. Got her to admit committing a criminal offence 257 times
3. Accused her of perjury
Todays going to be interesting. Myers is going to be a jack in the box “clarifying“ things, and Johnson may put the jury to sleep.

 

[ColourPurple]

IMO the prosecution had to address the crying at the outset as she was already crying when he started the cross-examination! If he didn't address it, it is highly likely she would use it as a delaying tactic every time he asked a difficult question. <modsnip - prejudicial>

I'm thinking he may not discuss all the babies in order because I think the prosecution like to keep the defendant on their toes, jumping from one topic to another, so the defendant cannot predict what the next question will be and try to plan their answer. He will try to catch her out in her alleged lies.

Today will be interesting!

Yes, I'm expecting histrionics at some point. I thought Johnson would probably just work through from A to B but looks like he may be going to target some major points first.

And yes. maybe if she hadn't already been crying (arguably, for herself) as the defence questioning finished, he wouldn't have brought it up straight away... or maybe it's been such an obvious feature to those observing the trial that he was always going to mention it as soon as he got the chance!


JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yes, I'm expecting histrionics at some point. I thought Johnson would probably just work through from A to B but looks like he may be going to target some major points first.

And yes. maybe if she hadn't already been crying (arguably, for herself) as the defence questioning finished, he wouldn't have brought it up straight away... or maybe it's been such an obvious feature to those observing the trial that he was always going to mention it as soon as he got the chance!


JMO

Or....maybe he has actually been reading the comments on here?

 

[Dcflag]

At risk of banging on about the handover sheets.. I was just looking for some clarification as I’m struggling with the excerpt of questioning we have. When he says “50, over 5 years” (paraphrasing and defo not a direct quote!) is he saying the 250+ are over a longer period of time and that 50 were in a 5 year period? Because that’s 10 sheets a year and suddenly that looks less awful?

Or is that 40 in 18 months and 10 in the rest of the 3 1/2 years?

I’m not really sure where the 50 in 5 years comes from basically!

Edited to add: while 10 a year sounds less awful, it’s still imo a BAD choice to store handover sheets, and certainly to the level she did

 

[Dcflag]

Or....maybe he has actually been reading the comments on here?

This is partly why I was super happy with the opening of his cross yesterday. It’s so RARE that you see an incident where they genuinely ask questions that everyone’s been speculating about for months and months. How many people here have talked about the fact she cries at images of her own room, or when dr choc takes the stand, but nothing when the parents were testifying or hearing medical experts? In fact it suggests that it’s not just a lack of reporting every time she’s cried and much more likely she genuinely is just crying at specific points in the trial that are related to herself and her life.

It gives me the confidence that he’s going to ask some of the burning questions this forum have debated over and over again and isn’t going to waste a second of the opportunity he’s been given.

 

[Marantz4250b]

At risk of banging on about the handover sheets.. I was just looking for some clarification as I’m struggling with the excerpt of questioning we have. When he says “50, over 5 years” (paraphrasing and defo not a direct quote!) is he saying the 250+ are over a longer period of time and that 50 were in a 5 year period? Because that’s 10 sheets a year and suddenly that looks less awful?

Or is that 40 in 18 months and 10 in the rest of the 3 1/2 years?

I’m not really sure where the 50 in 5 years comes from basically!

Edited to add: while 10 a year sounds less awful, it’s still imo a BAD choice to store handover sheets, and certainly to the level she did

I think it's just a bad quote of what he said.

We know there were definitely 257 sheets. The "50 over 5 years" (or however it was put) actually meant about 50 a year over five years, I believe. So, about one a week.

 

[DickieDumDum]

At risk of banging on about the handover sheets.. I was just looking for some clarification as I’m struggling with the excerpt of questioning we have. When he says “50, over 5 years” (paraphrasing and defo not a direct quote!) is he saying the 250+ are over a longer period of time and that 50 were in a 5 year period? Because that’s 10 sheets a year and suddenly that looks less awful?

Or is that 40 in 18 months and 10 in the rest of the 3 1/2 years?

I’m not really sure where the 50 in 5 years comes from basically!

Edited to add: while 10 a year sounds less awful, it’s still imo a BAD choice to store handover sheets, and certainly to the level she did

My reading is that he's saying if it's 250 over five years, that's 50 a year. But the reporting isn't clear. That might be just over one a week on average?

 

[ColourPurple]

Or....maybe he has actually been reading the comments on here?

It's the jury he's interested in, not us lot. So It wouldn't make sense for him to open with something he'd just read on here, unless he knew it would resonate with the jury.

But who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe at a weekend he does like to chill out with a glass of Bergerac, scrolling through Websleuths lol

 

[ColourPurple]

At risk of banging on about the handover sheets.. I was just looking for some clarification as I’m struggling with the excerpt of questioning we have. When he says “50, over 5 years” (paraphrasing and defo not a direct quote!) is he saying the 250+ are over a longer period of time and that 50 were in a 5 year period? Because that’s 10 sheets a year and suddenly that looks less awful?

Or is that 40 in 18 months and 10 in the rest of the 3 1/2 years?

I’m not really sure where the 50 in 5 years comes from basically!

Edited to add: while 10 a year sounds less awful, it’s still imo a BAD choice to store handover sheets, and certainly to the level she did

I think he was basically responding to her saying that they were spread over a number of years. So he's saying look even if they were spread over 5 years that would still be around 50 per year. JMO