UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I don't think it is that simple.

What happens to a doctor or a professor or a business manager, who falsely accuses a tenured, union employee of a heinous crime, like child abuse and attempted murder? Bringing such accusations forward without solid proof would be career suicide for the accuser.

And it could potentially cost the administrators many millions in lawsuits and penalties and cost many staff their own jobs.

What happens when a rumour begins that there is a serial killer among the nursing staff---even though there is no solid proof that it is valid?

Agreed, but if concerns are raised, there are low key ways for management to put protections in place while they investigate (eg someone shadowing the accused in a non obvious way or, the big one, putting cameras in the rooms, which is what they did eventually I believe.)

 

[Cardgame]

They couldn't really make any comparisons because the hospital lost it's credentials for caring for higher level of critical care babies because of the spike in deaths.

Ah, thank you for explaining. I hadn't understood this.

 

[Becci]

If a baby weren't so small would you usually wait to see if they self corrected?
Perhaps she did what she was used to with bigger babies in the heat of the moment.
Just an opinion which probs sounds ridiculous to you nurses lol

 

[marynnu]

If a baby weren't so small would you usually wait to see if they self corrected?
Perhaps she did what she was used to with bigger babies in the heat of the moment.
Just an opinion which probs sounds ridiculous to you nurses lol

All JMO.
It doesn't sound ridiculous at all. I personally wouldn't wait, but you make a good point. I'm not in the "Lucy is innocent" camp, or any camp for that matter, but IMO this is a tricky case to prove. Not least of all because the new tube also moved later & the position had to be adjusted. So we really only have her response to the situation to consider, and I feel that's open to doubt.

 

[JosieJo]

All JMO.
It doesn't sound ridiculous at all. I personally wouldn't wait, but you make a good point. I'm not in the "Lucy is innocent" camp, or any camp for that matter, but IMO this is a tricky case to prove. Not least of all because the new tube also moved later & the position had to be adjusted. So we really only have her response to the situation to consider, and I feel that's open to doubt.

Was LL still on duty the second time it moved do we know?

 

[Kemug]

Also, not a behavioural expert by any stretch, but LL’s lack of reaction when Dr J walked in feels important. If someone was in the process of killing a baby and was then unexpectedly caught in the act, I think I’d expect them to overcompensate, “Dr J, come quick, something is wrong”, not just nonchalantly remark that the baby seems to have just started deteriorating.

Good point.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think it is that simple.

What happens to a doctor or a professor or a business manager, who falsely accuses a tenured, union employee of a heinous crime, like child abuse and attempted murder? Bringing such accusations forward without solid proof would be career suicide for the accuser.

And it could potentially cost the administrators many millions in lawsuits and penalties and cost many staff their own jobs.

What happens when a rumour begins that there is a serial killer among the nursing staff---even though there is no solid proof that it is valid?

I think this is over-thinking the situation. There is absolutely no problem in expressing concerns to managers, directors or HR you may have regarding a person's fitness to do their job where you think a safety issue might be relevant. No way at all would it be "career suicide" for a consultant to bring a potentially dangerous nurse to the attention of her superiors or hospital authorities.

Yes, if you did it publicly you'd be in for all sorts of financial and career pain, especially if you were wrong, but no one would be adversely affected for going through the proper channels, even to the police if they thought the proper channels weren't working. As a doctor it's your ethical and professional duty to do so and, IMO, that would apply to any profession where the safety of vulnerable people is concerned. Indeed, in this case, Dr J has stated that it was a group of consultants so it's highly unlikely that they'd all be ganging up on a lowly nurse for no apparent reason.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of "tenure" from. LL isn't "tenured" and that is not really a concept here outside Universities and I'm not sure the phrase is even used here. LL is, as I say, a lowly nurse on a standard contract of employment. She has no influence over doctors, let alone consultants.

Even if you got it totally wrong, it wouldn't cost anyone anything, let alone millions, if you raised the concerns out of good faith and the proper procedures were followed. That's just how the system works and should work.

Al MO, obvs.

 

[marynnu]

Was LL still on duty the second time it moved do we know?

Must have been as it was between 6&7am, so still during the night shift. I think she was looking after 2 babies in another room, so as yet there's nothing to put her in Room 1 at that time, as far as I can tell.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I find myself with zero sympathy for the hospital or Dr J et al in this situation.

There were clearly whispers and suspicions going on, probably throughout this entire year. That information is trickling out now, including it being raised higher up BY the head of NNU alongside Dr J in Feb 2016. Let’s not forget 2 babies had been poisoned by insulin, with a clear evidence trail, by this point, but nobody bothered to look. Further babies continued to die while nobody took any action.

All they had to do was find a reason to remove LL from dealing with patients. Something as straightforward as “we’re dealing with an unprecedented number of deaths right now and you’ve taken the brunt of it, we’re concerned about your mental health and would prefer you not to deal with patients hands on until we’ve provided counselling” would have sufficed.

Instead they all acted like “there’s nothing we can do, the only option is to continue letting babies die until the even-higher-uppers do something”

Absolutely ridiculous.

JMO.

Edit: to add. I don’t work in healthcare, but I do work somewhere that struggles with accountability and has a culture of “I’ve reported it up, it’s someone else’s problem now”. And I’m getting the same impression from this hospital.

Exactly. On a very basic level - there is actually nothing wrong or prejudicial to say to someone "We've noticed that you've been associated with unusually high levels of unexpected incidents, it's our professional duty to take you off front-line nursing until we've investigated the matter". There is nothing unlawful or prejudicial in that at all and as a nurse you'd know that - it may just be that you've had stressful time and are making mistakes or that you are ill or something. People go on about needing "proof" of something (Dr J did in his evidence) before you can act but that simply isn't the case - the whole point of investigating is to determine whether is even proof of anything happening at all. It's acting in good faith that matters.

 

[katydid23]

I think this is over-thinking the situation. There is absolutely no problem in expressing concerns to managers, directors or HR you may have regarding a person's fitness to do their job where you think a safety issue might be relevant. No way at all would it be "career suicide" for a consultant to bring a potentially dangerous nurse to the attention of her superiors or hospital authorities.

Yes, if you did it publicly you'd be in for all sorts of financial and career pain, especially if you were wrong, but no one would be adversely affected for going through the proper channels, even to the police if they thought the proper channels weren't working. As a doctor it's your ethical and professional duty to do so and, IMO, that would apply to any profession where the safety of vulnerable people is concerned. Indeed, in this case, Dr J has stated that it was a group of consultants so it's highly unlikely that they'd all be ganging up on a lowly nurse for no apparent reason.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea of "tenure" from. LL isn't "tenured" and that is not really a concept here outside Universities and I'm not sure the phrase is even used here. LL is, as I say, a lowly nurse on a standard contract of employment. She has no influence over doctors, let alone consultants.

Even if you got it totally wrong, it wouldn't cost anyone anything, let alone millions, if you raised the concerns out of good faith and the proper procedures were followed. That's just how the system works and should work.

Al MO, obvs.

But that ^^^ is what the Doctor did. He raised concerns out of good faith, explained the suspicions he had, and was told by his superiors to stand down. He went through the proper channels and they rebuffed him.

If he had done anything further, after being told he didn't have enough evidence to back up his accusations, then it could have been a problem for him. He needed some solid proof to continue his complaints and reports.

By 'tenure' I meant that she was well educated, was a band 6, had lots of work experience and had a good work reputation. She was an ideal employee, took extra shifts and was reliable and responsible. So the hospital had good reason to believe she was a good employee and no reason to think she was purposely harming newborns.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Rock and hard place springs to mind at that point.

 

[Cardgame]

But that ^^^ is what the Doctor did. He raised concerns out of good faith, explained the suspicions he had, and was told by his superiors to stand down.

Yes I agree. They raised the concerns, and placed it in the hands of senior management. The doctors aren't in a position to remove a nurse from his or her station.

 

[LorriB]

Must have been as it was between 6&7am, so still during the night shift. I think she was looking after 2 babies in another room, so as yet there's nothing to put her in Room 1 at that time, as far as I can tell.

Yes dayshift began at 7.30 and LL cosigned for meds at this time. No suggestion she was left alone with baby K and I'm sure we would have heard about it if there's suspicions she dislodged the tube a second time.

 

[marynnu]

Yes dayshift began at 7.30 and LL cosigned for meds at this time. No suggestion she was left alone with baby K and I'm sure we would have heard about it if there's suspicions she dislodged the tube a second time.

I agree, though not sure if the evidence for Baby K has finished or not?

 

[katydid23]

Doctors pressured not to make a fuss over Lucy Letby, trial told

A doctor tells jurors he wished he had bypassed hospital management and gone to the police.

www.bbc.com

A consultant has said that doctors were put under pressure by hospital management not to make a fuss when they raised concerns about nurse Lucy Letby.
Dr Ravi Jayaram said his team first raised concerns about unusual episodes involving babies in October 2015.

Dr Jayaram told Manchester Crown Court his team notified the senior director of nursing in autumn 2015 but nothing was done.
He told the court the matter was raised again in February 2016 and the hospital's medical director was told at this point.

The consultants asked for a meeting but did not hear back for another three months, the court heard.
Ms Letby was not removed from front-line nursing until summer 2016.
Dr Jayaram told jurors that he wished he had bypassed hospital management and gone to the police.
He said: "We were getting a reasonable amount of pressure from senior management at the hospital not to make a fuss."

Dr Jayaram said: "Jo had told me she was going to the labour ward and she told me that Lucy Letby was babysitting, keeping an eye on things.
"At this point, in mid-February, we were aware as a team of a number of unexpected and unusual events and we were aware of an association with Lucy Letby.
"That's all we were aware of. No cause and effect had been ascribed."
He said he felt "extremely uncomfortable" at being told Ms Letby would be there.
"You can call me hysterical, you can call me irrational, but that's how I felt because of this association," he told the court.

"Then the rational part of myself told me to stop being so ridiculous and I kept doing what I was doing but the thought kept coming back into my head."
He said he got up to check on Child K to "prove" to himself that he "needed to stop being ridiculous and irrational".

 

[Tortoise]

Must have been as it was between 6&7am, so still during the night shift. I think she was looking after 2 babies in another room, so as yet there's nothing to put her in Room 1 at that time, as far as I can tell.

A nursing note is made for Child K by Lucy Letby, who was not Child K's designated nurse, at 6.04am-6.10am.
An x-ray records the ET tube is in the right place at 6.07am.
Dr Jayaram notes an event at 6.15am: '@0615 began to have lower sats & IV down to 2.5...Tube pulled back to 6cm".
Retrospective notes by Dr Jayaram record: 'Tube noted to have slipped to 8cm @ lips - withdrawn and heart rate picked up immediately.'
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, February 27


opening speech -

"Later the same morning, Letby was again at child K’s cot calling for help.
She was assisting the baby with her breathing and it was found child K’s breathing tube had this time slipped too far into her throat."
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby


Pros'n say that Lucy Letby logged onto baby K's nursing record despite the fact that she was not her designated nurse.

Pros'n: Shortly afterwards at the shift handover, Nurse Letby was again at baby K's cot calling for help. She was assisting the baby with her breathing and it was found that this time, the breathing tube had slipped too far into her throat
https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz [Tweets October 12th 2022]

 

[LorriB]

We don't know the full details of the reporting Dr J and colleagues did or didn't do yet, just that concerns were raised. I'm interested to see what is actually documented vs what Dr J and colleagues recall.

 

[katydid23]

We don't know the full details of the reporting Dr J and colleagues did or didn't do yet, just that concerns were raised. I'm interested to see what is actually documented vs what Dr J and colleagues recall.

Might not be much documentation if the administrators didn't want it to go anywhere.

 

[LorriB]

Likewise may not be much documentation if the consultants in hindsight aren't recalling it accurately.

Might not be much documentation if the administrators didn't want it to go anywhere.

 

[Tortoise]

There were clearly whispers and suspicions going on, probably throughout this entire year. That information is trickling out now, including it being raised higher up BY the head of NNU alongside Dr J in Feb 2016. Let’s not forget 2 babies had been poisoned by insulin, with a clear evidence trail, by this point, but nobody bothered to look. Further babies continued to die while nobody took any action.

RSBM

No, the second alleged insulin poisoning happened two months later, April 9th 2016 - child L.


Allegations and designations by month -

8 Jun 2015 - A - murder - night – room 1 - designated
10 Jun 2015 - B - attempted murder - night – room 1 - not designated – LL room 3
14 Jun 2015 - C - murder - night – room 1 - not designated – LL room 3
22 Jun 2015 - D - murder - night – room 1 - not designated – LL room 1

4 Aug 2015 - E - murder - night – room 1 - designated
5 Aug 2015 - F - attempted murder - night – room 2 - not designated – LL room 2 (insulin)

7 Sep 2015 - G - attempted murder - night – room 2 - not designated – LL room 1
21 Sep 2015 - G - 2 x attempted murder - day - designated
26 Sep 2015 - H - attempted murder - night – room 1 - designated
27 Sep 2015 - H - attempted murder - night – room 1 - not designated – LL room 2
30 Sep 2015 - I - attempted murder - day – room 3 - designated

13 Oct 2015 - I - attempted murder - night – room 2 - not designated – LL room 1
14 Oct 2015 - I - attempted murder - night – room? - designated
23 Oct 2015 - I - murder - night – room 1 - not designated – LL room 3

27 Nov 2015 - J - attempted murder – moved from room 4 to room 2 - night – not designated – LL room 3

17 Feb 2016 - K - attempted murder - night – room 1 – not designated – LL room ?

9 Apr 2016 - L - attempted murder - day – room 1 – not designated – LL room 1 (insulin)
9 Apr 2016 - M - attempted murder - day – room 1 – not designated – LL room 1

3 Jun 2016 - N - attempted murder - night – room ? - not designated – LL room 4
15 Jun 2016 - N - 2 x attempted murder - day – room 3 - designated
23 Jun 2016 - O - murder - day – room 2 - designated
24 Jun 2016 - P - murder - day – room 2 - designated – but care transferred – not-designated
25 Jun 2016 - Q - attempted murder - day – room 2- designated