If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

Of course they could have - I think we all know the number!

Whether they should have in that set of circumstances (ie without the backing of the trust’s exec, and preferably the whole board) is a completely different matter though.

So you are saying that the consultants could have gone directly to the police.

Sure, and when the police speak to the CEO or Medical Director and they say there’s some beef around a grievance, we’ve done our own investigations and we’re happy there’s nothing to see here?

I’m really not convinced the police wouldn’t have left it there, and I imagine that was in the consultants’ minds too.

I will say again, the enquiry was about how to prevent this from happening again.

Part of that would have been a greater presense of consultants on the ward.

As for the consultants lying.
In court one said that LL did nothing yet in his emails he said that she did.

Another soid that they had a drawer of evidence that they sat on for a year and did nothing.

If you had been following the case you would know this.

They could realistically have gone to the police.
It would have cost them.
But they could have gone if they truly believed that LL was murdering babies.

Also, anyone who thinks the consultants could realistically have gone to the police without the backing of the trust’s executive leadership is being quite naive, and has clearly never worked at that level in that sort of environment.

I’ll say again, the lack of consultant presence on the ward was the trust’s issue, not the consultants’.

And what proof do you have that any of the consultants either sat on evidence or lied?

The enquiry was about how this could be prevented, (however flawed that premise is based on the shaky evidence of the conviction).

Part of that is the lack of consultant presence on the ward.
But even if the enquiry is happy to ignore that and make them into some sort of hero. I t also ignores that one sat on "evidence" and another lied about what he saw which was proven in his own email.

So even if they believed that she harmed the babies they could have done more sooner, including going to the police themselves.

You’re conflating two very different scenarios here, each with very different amounts of precedent, benchmarking, established process (or lack of), risk assessment and appetites/thresholds, as well as potential interfaces with completely different bodies and systems (NHSE/CQC vs the police).

The consultants used the levers available to them to try and address the resourcing issues, however suspicions about a colleague causing harm and the approach to raising those suspicions, were a wholly different and mainly unchartered ball game (as would have been the case at pretty much any trust at that time).

If she harmed the babies, which many people still believe she did, then of course they were absolutely right to be so dogged about it.

They were productive enough to force the hospital to go to the police. If they used the same focus they could have used that same energy to force more rounds.
If the hospital was responsible for them doing so few.

Do you believe that two rounds a week was enough?

What were they doing with the rest of their time that was so unproductive in your view? Looking after the paeds?

I feel it was the consultants decision to defend themselves when their time could have been used in a much more productive manner.

The enquiry, given all of the information, should have highlighted this, and not defended people that lied and sat on a drawer of "evidence".

Even the whistleblowers charity has siad that they didn't act like whistleblowers.

I don't think trust management denied the need for more medical cover - they just - just! - didn't prioritise it. Nurses and consultants were both pushing for more staffing - ten more registered nurses and two more consultants. I agree that it would have been hard and not necessarily productive for the consultants to resign. Slowing down admissions might have been a wise move. Chester didn't close to new admissions when it was over ratios, unlike some other hospitals in the network.

If Lucy Letby murdered infants, she is to blame, obviously, but if not and failings in care were responsible, I don't think it can be pinned just on the consultants - much more complex than that.

If they felt it was neglect, they could have all resigned, but they didn’t!

This sounds realistic and not at all counterproductive 😐

The consultants were pushing for additional resource and saying the level of cover was potentially unsafe well before the RCPCH came in. It was the trust management that were denying it

I’m interested to know what levers you think were actually available to them other than escalating risks and submitting business cases?

If they'd put as much energy into pushing for the changes suggested by the various reviews to be implemented as they did into convincing everyone Letby was a murderer and playing at detective, things could have turned out differently.

Instead, they refused to accept that the spike in deaths was at least in part down to their own inexperience and poor care and continued pushing the narrative of a killer nurse.

If they felt it was neglect, they could have all resigned, but they didn’t! A friend of ours, a professional refused to sign a fraudulent VAT return for his employer. He was marched out of the building by security. This was about the lives of very vulnerable babies, way more important than money!

It seems like you think it was the consultants’ decision to only two rounds per week? Their job plans were/are entirely dictated by the Trust, in line with its operating model. They can’t just leave their other work to go and do additional ward rounds because they feel like it.

My understanding is that the consultants had actually been pushing a business case for additional resource which was approved, but then the trust kept delaying taking it forward.

I find it a lot more distasteful that a dedicated nurse was scapegoated to draw attention away from a failing unit and is in prison for life for crimes that didn’t even happen, but you do you.

You can find it as distasteful as you like.

They did fewer rounds than they were supposed to and at least one was caught lying by his own email.

They are the facts.

But none of that has to do with an enquiry that has put forward points that are not based on the (biased) facts that they where given and has tried to make heroes out of people that didn't do their job correctly and in several cases have been caught lying.

I find all this criticism of the consultants very distasteful. They battled to save those babies lives, and a lot more would've died if it hadn't been for them.

How did they evidence that? The enjoyment of drama part that is.

As I have repeatedly posted in reply to you before.

I don't know whether LL is innocent or guilty, I believe that the werdict is unsound.

But none of that has to do with an enquiry that has put forward points that are not based on the (biased) facts that they where given and has tried to make heroes out of people that didn't do their job correctly and in several cases have been caught lying.

I also haven't been part of the baby C disussion so I am not sure why you have tried to bring me in on that.

Yes, there appears to be a pandemic of mistakes. The original pathologists were mistaken; the reviewers from the RCPCH were mistaken; internal reviewers were mistaken; the external reviewers into 13 of the deaths were mistaken; Shoo Lee et al all mistaken...

Chester Police themselves were mistaken until they met with the consultants.

@Frequency there's a lot of "mistaken" parents in this in order to defend the baby killer isn't there?