Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

Mirab

looking at data from elsewhere will tell you nothing about what happened on that unit, on those dates to those babies

and allude or indicate is neither here nor there!

All I am saying is that the data suggests in the neonates in 2015/2016 at the COCH some external influence that wasn't present before or after was influencing the deaths at the hospital at that time.

The stillbirth data suggests a low outlier of 2 deaths in 2016 so I would be looking at what changed in 2016 to reduce deaths so radically. The high in 2015 of 12 isn't much more than the other years and does not standout as unusual.

That's just the data with no emotion attached and I would have said the same not knowing the source.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here 🤔

I meant allude, as in suggests, hints to an outside factor at play. Not sure why you think is wrong.

As I said numbers can never suggest an outside influence. They’re just numbers.

You can apply theories to account for the data.

In different circumstances (or indeed in these circumstances) it could reflect a run of sicker babies, management and staffing problems etc.

That outside influence could be a run of sicker babies, a problem with management or staffing in 2015/2016 specifically. It could also be the person on trial.

You asked about stillbirths which is why I looked for the data. But that data, like I said, suggests a lower stillbirth rate in 2016 than any other year by a long way.

I am by no means playing down the failings of the COCH with regards to it's stillbirth numbers compared with the national average. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't show the same trend as the neonates and doesn't have any years which standout as unusually high for them.

Perhaps I am missing why you are interested in the stillbirth data? I assumed you were trying to link it to this case somehow, but maybe I am wrong?

That’s not quite how ‘allude’ is used but I understand what you’re saying.

I think it's perfect 😁

It’s been discussed previously on the thread.

Of the years 2015-2017: stillbirths are higher in 2015 and 2017, (and over double the National average in 2013 and 2014 too); the neonate deaths are higher in 2015 and 2016. The context is what else is going on in the hospital. Are the neonate deaths in 2015 and 16 the outliers they seem. The numbers themselves don’t tell you anything. The insulin data and the unusual deaths is why we’re here; otherwise you just have a couple of unfortunate years.

Agreed mostly. But I would say the neonate death outliers are real and probably what sparked this whole investigation in the first place.

But I don't buy in to the conspiracy theory that the hospital is covering up its failings with this case (not suggesting you do either) but I can't help feeling that seems to be the major alternative theory here.

It’s not the numbers per se that sparked the investigation - it was the fact of the deaths being unusual and unexpected. If they had all been expected or unsurprising in nature we wouldn’t be here.

I don’t think that the idea that the hospital has had problems leads to a conspiracy or conspiracy theory.

I’m sure that the people who accused LL believe what they say and they may well be right. But it may be that the staffing and management issues were more profound than they realised and had unexpected tragic consequences they would rather believe were caused by an outside force than failings within their own department. Of course the unusual nature of the deaths supports this.

However, repeatedly, when asked by the Prosecutor jf staffing or incompetence played a role in the incidents being discussed, letby has stated that it has not.

Exactly Paddington!

So if Ben Myers was hoping to use that in his defence then her responses have ruined that!

The thing is many workplaces are short of staff from time to time. If it was dangerous on that ward I’m certain she would have lots of text messages to confirm this.

Also odd how she claimed she didn’t have a shredder but admits she shreds bank statements straightaway. But then remembered she does have a shredder and that she collects paper - be interested to know if there was other paper in her house and not just hospital notes

Child O was born at the end of June 2016. He died within the first week of his life.
At the time of his birth, Letby was abroad in Ibiza on holiday with friends - including one of her colleagues.
She returned the day before Child O died.
Text messages she sent a colleague include one on 22 June in which she wrote, responding to a question about when she was returning to work: "Yep probably be back in with a bang lol".
Within 72 hours of that text, Children O and P had died, and Child Q had collapsed.
Letby agrees this was the case.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375

incase anyone is interested

I think the fact that all hospitals are short from time to time would make it less likely to be the case. Not least because if it contributed to these deaths someone would have seen a cause of death like the suspected air embolism ones before.

And they’d already ruled out insulin being given to the wrong baby by accident because no other baby was prescribed insulin.

Still can’t get over the fact that they looked into that at the time, decided it was non accidental and then seem to have nothing about it. I suspect fallout from this trial is going to revolve around whether more could have been done earlier and whether some of the later babies could have been saved.

Absolutely agree Rafa.
Whatever the outcome of this trial the actions of senior staff as admitted by themselves under oath in court has been disgraceful.
I'm referring to moving shift patterns 'to see what happens' and pressuring parents not to get post mortems.
There were other aspects of poor care in the prosecution (so who knows what the defence will have!) that were shocking too. One bit of evidence when Letby was accused of turning a monitor off a doctor admitted it was them. That could've been sorted before court, they've had 6 years.

I'm not commenting on these things in relation to guilt / innocence. We are not allowed anyway.
But it's clearly not a well run hospital at the top level to put it mildly.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/15978747.no-single-cause-identified-for-rise-in-baby-deaths-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/

For anyone wondering about why the stillbirths are not covered more as COCH had very high rates. This is an interesting and could explain why stillbirths were unusually low for COCH in 2016 if they were not accepting high dependency births.

Reading the article it suggests that restrictions were in place for at least the duration of the review, which was expected to be finished in August 2016 and think it started around February 2016 as that's when the review into the unusually high stillbirths and neonatal deaths was suggested by the recent requires improvement inspection.

I just think it's important as it explains why we cannot just pick and choose the 2015-2017 data for stillbirths as the unusually low number in 2016 was obviously a product of these restrictions and makes the 2015 and 2017 data look absurdly high.

Also interesting how restrictions were in place and neonate deaths remained high (they weren't accepting babies less than 32 weeks in gestation) whereas stillbirths fell significantly during the same time period......

Yes but I’m pretty sure Baby K was the only baby that was under 30 weeks and I think LL criticised the fact that when the mother went into labour that she was took to the CoCH hospital in the first place

I'm not sure about the gestations to be honest. It was just odd how the stillbirths were so low in 2016 that I had look to try and figure out why. You would expect the neonatal deaths to possibly have a similar tragectory if there were restrictions in place but they don't.... Which, to me anyway, strengthens the argument that it is not simply hospital failings at play here.

The more and more I look at this case the more sinister it gets. The triplets today have been awful to read about.

I agree about the triplets.

But also with the other babies it is the sheer number of times they required resuscitation- fine one minute then de sat the next

Then fine again then boom

I can see why the Drs started to become suspicious about what was actually going on as many of them have said all of these collapses were not a common occurrence in their years of experience

I've been alarmed after today to be honest. After this part with the prosecution does the defence produce counter arguments or will this be it?

I expect the defence KC will ask her some more questions. I'd be surprised if not after 14 days of prosecution questioning.

Then once LL's evidence is done they'll call their next witness.

I'm unsure how long until they are done but I'd expect another month at least depending on how many witnesses.

The deliberation should take quite a while on so much evidence and charges.

Apparently the prosecution are going to be questioning her tomorrow again

That back with a bang text is unfortunate given what followed.