Lucy Letby guilty - part 2

[twoandcooplease]

Thread 1 Lucy Letby guilty www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4875009-lucy-letby-guilty

Just in case anyone wants to keep the conversation going

They didn't go into the neonatal unit and murder babies.

They didn’t take any steps to stop it either. They’re definitely culpable to a degree.

I think I am right in saying that she had in fact already killed three poor babies by the time the registrar she was friendly with (affair possibly) came into view. So, it might have played into the whole situation but I don't think he was the initial motivator. I did not follow this very carefully in the trial though.

A lot of evidence is in the public domain and did make the papers but it was a very detailed and in most ways boring trial due to the type of evidence and so it wasn't front page news. I saw the note which makes her seem the most guilty (which says I did it, although what 'it' is is not specified) during the trial but lots of people seem surprised by the 'new' evidence. I don't remember the handover sheet stuff though, but I wasn't following the trial that closely, just every few weeks I'd notice it.

Ah okay thanks for confirming re. the NHS meetings. It’s not standard practice in most companies.

She apparently liked being given charge of the sickest babies on the unit, often asked to be allocated to them. This suggests she likes the drama and importance of critical care, which of flipping COURSE doesn’t prove she murdered them, I’m just pointing out that there is adrenaline and thrill involved in resuscitation/saving lives, not to mention the immense and sincere love and gratitude of the parents/families of patients.

I was an adult ICU nurse and we used to get occasional babies in with epiglottitis, etc., they were so little, and could deteriorate so fast they terrified me, I never volunteered to look after them! But yeah, if an adult arrested, there was a certain kudos to being calm, capable and bringing them back to life. It was all very gratifying, tbh, and I can kind of understand how that might become addictive. There have been a couple of other UK cases where A&E nurses were inducing cardiac arrest in their sick patients, just for the thrill of resuscitating them.

Except she did murder them.

Yes. But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

The thing is, I think there will always be utterly evil people out there. She wont be the last.
You'd hope though, that there would be adequate safeguards and protocols in our hospitals, schools and communities to stop their progress.
It is beyond scandalous that she was allowed to continue and I feel that the hospital managers most definitely need to be brought to account.

I have whistle blown in the NHS and on both occasions I was forced out by managers too incompetent to deal with the issues raised. One manager told me that in such situations she had found that the best management technique was to "listen to everyone then wait until things blow themselves out".
They aren't paid to do nothing, they are paid to ensure the safety of the patients and staff in their care and they massively failed in their duties.
If the Police were at fault we would be clamouring for their hierachy to resign and I do hope that those who failed to report LL to the Police are brought to justice themselves.

Complete credit to Cheshire Police, who, once they were given the opportunity, seemed to have acted promptly, decisively and with integrity.

One of the consultants said in an interview that the senior managers were very ‘anti doctor’, most having come from a nursing background. How can a hospital be run where the doctors aren’t respected? Talk about a toxic workplace.

I'm not saying that they weren't incompetent or negligent, and no doubt there will be an enquiry.

It's just that this sort of thing always happens when some despicable killer is imprisoned. People start jumping on the bandwagon and blaming everyone else instead of the perpetrator.

I'm a very senior paediatric nurse with responsibility for safeguarding and child protection in a large hospital.
Where are the senior nurses in all of this? The consultants were rightly raising concerns and likely representing concerns from the junior doctors as well who won't have failed to notice what was going as well.
But where were the nurses? The colleagues, the unit managers, the matron, the Named Nurse for Safeguarding, the director of patient safety, the director of nursing?
I have followed this case closely from the time Lucy letby was first arrested and while some nurses did give evidence in the trial I get no sense of where the senior nurses were and what they were or were not saying or doing.
Freedom to speak up guardians were in their infancy at this time so that likely wasn't a route for staff.
My role is the kind where people would come to me and raise concerns if they though children were at risk of harm.
I just don't understand it.
I'm hoping the enquiry unpicks the hierarchy, the management responses, the lack of prioritising the safety of the babies, the sluggish responses. Nurses also need to answer for their actions or lack of them.
I agree with a PP who commented that she may have acted as a result of her infatuation with the married paediatrician. I think there was an underlying personality disorder and more for reaching enquiries may show other earlier victims but her infatuation is likely to have ramped up her behaviours and detached herself from the victims and her actions and focussed on the rewards she received from this man in terms of attention, no matter how small. Hence the sudden increase in victims over a short period of time. Just my theory any way.
Having been in the nhs for 30 years and have been a whistleblower which damaged my career for a decade, the management response in this case saddens but does not surprise me.

The text messages to friends were telling - a combination of wanting to be a hero, wanting pity when children in her "care" died and also anger when she was told she wouldn't be in that room for a shift (as more of a duty of care thing after baby deaths, rather than any suspicions on her).

Also there was odd time keeping behaviour - turning up to work very early, leaving way after shift ended and coming in on days off (not on overtime, just turning up to "check" on babies and families") - this should also have been picked up on by ward sisters, aside from anything staying several hours either side of a 12hr shift should have been picked up in terms of fatigue, working time etc

I still find it hard to believe the managers ignored the massive increase in death rates. Every PICU that I know of keeps mortality scores specifically to see how good or not their care is and to alert them to any issues. I would hope that NICU's did too.
Patients are usually scored on admission and an algorithm gives a % mortality score, so an estimate of the likelihood of their survival. You then also collect your actual scores and if the predicted mortality is less than the actual mortality this should trigger an investigation.Especially as it was such a huge increase statistically
It's extremely rare for a previously stable baby to collapse in a heap like that there are warning signs unless it's something catastrophic and even then they usually compensate for a little giving you time to intervene.
It must have been obvious to them very early on that something wasn't right, and to be met with a brick wall by management. I can't imagine the distress that caused them.

Just jumping on here with a question which you've probably already discussed : why was the consultant LL was friends with allowed to remain anonymous when he gave evidence?

Maybe that was a condition of giving evidence. He apparently is married with a family and doesn't want his name dragged through the papers or his family targeted by internet keyboard warriors and trolls

I would imagine because he'd be hounded by the press and probably to safeguard his children

He was a registrar, not a consultant. Presumably he was allowed to remain anonymous as identifying him would be seriously career limiting.

I worked in psychiatry on wards for years and there is a definite adrenaline rush involved in a serious incident. That's just biology.

I wasn't one who ever enjoyed it, in fact was traumatised quite often but there was an undeniable physical and emotional effect when you're literally running to attend an alarm and then dealing with something that most people never deal with.

And when it all got dealt with and went well, yes it was gratifying. The informal 'debriefs' in the staff room or outside having a fag (in the days when I smoked) or the "anyone fancy a pint after work to decompress nights out?' also contributed to the emotional reward/bonding etc even though all the incidents were shitty to witness or be part of.

Some of my colleagues really seemed to thrive on it. Dopamine,cortisol and adrenaline are powerfully addictive.

He was seemingly having an extra marital affair (emotional if not physical) with LL.

In some of their text exchanges (which was used as evidence) he says that he would totally trust her with his own children.

I imagine that part of his conditions on giving evidence would be anonymity to protect his wife and children from press intrusion and being hounded by the public. Imagine the bullying “your dad had an affair with a baby killer. Your dad would have trusted a murderer to take care of you” etc.

@BlissBlakeney Impact on his teenage children was the reason given (they were not aware of his links to case)

The BBC says he was a senior registrar, not a consultant. Third time repeating this.

I'm not sure evidence was submitted to suggest an affair, even if 'just' emotional.

There was a text with a heart. But no texts involving emotional language? No exchange of their feelings for each other?

I can understand him not wanting to be identified but that also doesn't suggest an affair of any kind based on the evidence presented in court.

I think the evidence suggested that Lucy felt very strongly about him but not that he had ever reciprocated?

I've just found the second thread!

Sentencing is Monday isn't it? I think they're saying whole life sentence.

Though I'm wondering now what happened to Beverley Allitt and if she ever applied for parole.

I get why he was kept anonymous. What I don't understand is why the trial failed to establish whether or not they were having a sexual relationship. Surely this is pretty relevant to the case and it would have been appropriate to get an answer from him in relation to this.
Also I read that many text messages between were not shown to the court which again seems odd

Why is it relevant? I can’t see that it’s of any relevance whatsoever, given that he was a prosecution witness.