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

[squish]

It’s not just that, there seems to have been a widespread reluctance to put anything down in writing. I said it at the time and I stand by it, I do not think Dr J simply forgot to write down about that suspicious rash, I think he was conditioned not to write it down specifically due to the suspicious nature of it. And I believe him when he says he regrets it now.

Everything seems to have been “I spoke to X, they spoke to X, everyone was talking in the canteen, consultants held a secret meeting” but there’s so little actual evidence of any of it.

In fact, it’s quite interesting that LL’s note questioned what “written evidence” they had of the allegations.

Clearly a cultural issue within the organisation, which absolutely needs to change.

JMO.

I agree.

I do believe that it’s so extraordinary to think that your friendly nurse colleague is killing babies, that you would think you were going crazy if you even dared to consider it, even if you saw it with your own eyes, like for Dr Jayaram and baby K (allegedly, etc).

But I think there was also an aspect of not wanting to put his head above the parapet. If he was found to be making an incorrect accusation, he would have got in trouble. And he didn’t want to risk it for himself.

The same is true for all of them: that’s why they wanted management’s support before involving the police, and that’s why they wanted management to be the ones to report it, not themselves.

That way, they cannot be accused of bullying, harassment, discrimination etc.

It’s ironic that protections against bullying have gone so far that you now cannot raise genuine concerns.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I didn't realise that LL had been on clerical duties for 11 months. I'm surprised she tolerated it.

My feelings are; if you think that a nurse has been intentionally harming patients then why tf would you even let them back into the building until you had investigated?? If you think they are simply doing a bad job then you cannot simply leave them wallowing in an admin role - it is your duty as their employer to address their needs which may involve retraining or trying to discover what might be causing whatever problems they may be going through.

I see no rational explanation the hospital can come up with here to justify their actions here.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I agree.

I do believe that it’s so extraordinary to think that your friendly nurse colleague is killing babies, that you would think you were going crazy if you even dared to consider it, even if you saw it with your own eyes, like for Dr Jayaram and baby K (allegedly, etc).

But I think there was also an aspect of not wanting to put his head above the parapet. If he was found to be making an incorrect accusation, he would have got in trouble. And he didn’t want to risk it for himself.

The same is true for all of them: that’s why they wanted management’s support before involving the police, and that’s why they wanted management to be the ones to report it, not themselves.

That way, they cannot be accused of bullying, harassment, discrimination etc.

It’s ironic that protections against bullying have gone so far that you now cannot raise genuine concerns.

Yes and this is probably the root of the failure to write anything down too, with freedom of information act, data subject access requests etc, everything you write down is disclosable. To staff, to patients, to the public, to everyone. So instead of covering your own back and popping a confidential email over to Dr Breary expressing your concerns (which had the added effect of putting the onus on him to actually take some action), you stop, and swing by his desk instead to have a hushed conversation.

 

[Tortoise]

My feelings are; if you think that a nurse has been intentionally harming patients then why tf would you even let them back into the building until you had investigated?? If you think they are simply doing a bad job then you cannot simply leave them wallowing in an admin role - it is your duty as their employer to address their needs which may involve retraining or trying to discover what might be causing whatever problems they may be going through.

I see no rational explanation the hospital can come up with here to justify their actions here.

But you're not actually specifying who would stop her coming in the building, or who would decide she needed further training. The consultants were powerless to stop her coming in the building, and didn't think it was a training issue, and the management wanted her reinstated. No one had those aims you suggest in mind until it was properly investigated. At least from that point on she could not pose a risk to patients.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I've got this in a timeline for baby P based off opening speech and electronic evidence

23 June

6pm - Dr Gibbs reviewed P because O had died in unusual circumstances. The abdomen was full, mildly distended, no tenderness and active bowel sounds (good signs). He was screened for infection.

6pm - P was fed donor expressed milk signed only by LL

LL records, for the family communication: 'Parents kept updated on events throughout the afternoon - were present for some of the resuscitation and maternal grandmother present for support. '...Time alone [for parents and O] given. Photographs taken on mobile. Aware of need to keep lines/ET Tube in at present. 'O taken to family room to be with parents. Cooling cot arranged' (electronic evidence)

7.30/8pm – night-shift handover

8pm - P was fed donor expressed milk – there was a 14ml milk acidic aspirate. An x-ray taken at 8pm showed striking gaseous distension throughout the stomach and whole bowel.

8.24pm – LL made nursing notes for P.

On that night-shift milk feeds were stopped on the grounds that a further large part-digested aspirate was drawn up the NGT at feeding time.

8.35pm – LL made retrospective nursing notes for O for 1.15pm and 4.19pm (mix electronic evidence and opening speech)

8.51pm - A nursing note recorded at 20:51 by LL is being shown to court. It summarises O's deterioration and what happened with parents after (being taken to family room to be with him) (electronic evidence)

Shortly after 8.51pm –
Doc: Are you okay?
LL: 'think so, just finishing my notes, can't wait to get home. How are you?'
Doc: Had a moment in the car, bit better now.
doctor asks her if she is going to vote in the Brexit referendum
LL: 'no can't face that'
LL: Just walking home. Parents very grateful for everything. Nice to have some fresh air.
Doc: Your notes must have taken a long time. Had you documented anything from this morning?
LL: Can’t think straight, so took a while.
Doc: Phew, not the first day back you were expecting. I was glad you were there, everything felt safe. Thank you for looking out for me.
LL: No, but it happens. Don’t need to thank me, I’m pleased you were there, think we work well together. Sorry for my loss of composure moment
Doc: I was trying to say thanks for checking I was okay. We do work well together I’m glad you could talk to me and I hope I helped.
LL: That’s okay, good to talk it through otherwise carry it round.
Doc: There are very few things that a hug can’t help fix.
LL: One of those days
Doc: Thank you for keeping me company again. Sleep well.
LL: Don’t be daft, it’s a two-way thing and what friends are for. You had me blubbering, night.
Doc: Oh no, how guilty do I feel. Goodnight.
LL: Guilty? I mean you had to see me blubbering at work.
Doc: Oops my mistake. I thought it had tipped you over on the end of a bad day. Blubbering at work is normal for someone who cares about the families and babies that they look after.
LL: No, no I’m fully composed. Thank you a good cry is what’s needed sometimes. Hope you sleep.
Doc: Goodnight


Time? To a nursing colleague, LL: 'Lost a triplet today, been *advertiser censored* x'
colleague: *** hell, what happened?
LL: blew up abdomen, think it’s sepsis. Went very suddenly. IO access and abdominal drain
Colleague: how many weeks?
LL: 33
Colleague: assuming they all seemed stable if had all three?
LL: yeah, were all fine. This one still on Optiflow but weaning and all fully fed 2 x 12.
Colleague: Jesus
LL: had big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there.
Coll: big hugs. Be treating all of them with anti-b’s then, or think just that one?
LL: yeah, other two been re-screened and gases etc just in case, as not really sure what caused collapse. I want to be in Ibiza ☹
Coll: 'I bet you don't want to go back in tomorrow'
LL: 'I do and I don't' think good to go back in and talk about it'
Nurse: 'Poor parents'
LL said O had died on the student's first day of a four-week placement. She adds who was on duty that day.
Nurse: 'Lots of consultants then. bloody tragic news. We don't have any luck with 33-34wkrs. Never seem b able to tell do u
LL: 'Awful. No, not a good gestation. deteriorate so quick'.
nurse: hope other two have an easy ride now for the parents’ sake.
LL: worry as identical.
LL said one colleague was upset about what had happened.
LL adds: 'Yeah worried she's missed something'
Nurse: 'Wow identical triplets! Didn't know that even happened'

LL messaged a nursing colleague to suggest a cause of death as sepsis or NEC. She told police she thought that at the time because 'it was a discussion they had all had' on the unit."

LL’s mother messaged LL saying it was sad what had happened on the first day back after LL's holiday.
LL: 'Yep it's just as well I love my job!'

The doctor messages LL to say the debrief didn't find anything that was missed for the events of O.

LL messages the doctor to say 'apparently' she had sounded bossy around the time of the baptism call for O.
The doctor says he would interpret it as being proactive.
LL says she has 'broad shoulders' and had apologised, saying it could have been interpreted as being overly direct.
The two agree it had been a stressful situation.


24 Jun 2016, Fri – LL’s day-shift – murder charge child P

After midnight –

1.25am - The pair wish each other goodnight (electronic evidence)

6.39am – A nurse recorded P’s abdomen was soft and non-distended. 25ml of air had been aspirated by one of the nurses and the NGT had been placed on free-drainage. The problem P had when LL handed over to the night-shift had resolved. (opening speech)

Morning - doctor messages LL again that morning asking how she slept and letting her know that a medical director has been on ward (electronic evidence)

Ahead of the shift doctor messaged LL: "Are you OK? It's rubbish not to sleep well in the middle of 3 long days. Hope your day goes OK."
LL: "Hmm maybe. I'll be watching them both (Child P and the surviving triplet) like a hawk.

7.30/8am – LL’s day-shift. P’s designated nurse (and the third triplet) in room 2.

LL to doctor: "I'm OK. Just don't want to be here really. Hoping I may get the new admissions."
LL to doctor: “I might see if she (a student nurse) can work with someone else as don’t feel I’m in frame of mind to support her properly and paperwork to finish off”

8.30am - Text messages LL sent to a doctor at just after 8.30am suggest she had sent, or was sending, her student with a baby who needed an MRI scan.

Approx. 9.30am - LL's nursing notes from later that night (9.18pm-10pm) recorded: "Written in retrospect...NG tube on free drainage - trace amount in tube. Abdomen full – loops visible, soft to touch … Reg...arrived to carry out ward round – P had apnoea, brady, desat with mottled appearance requiring facial oxygen and neopuff for approx. 1 min. Abdomen becoming distended. Decision made to carry out bloods and gas (approx. 09:30)”

9.35am - A registrar noted P, at 9.35am, had “desat + bradys” and had a moderately distended / bloated abdomen and slightly mottled skin.

9.50am - P had an acute deterioration. A crash call went out. P was intubated and improved, and efforts were made to transfer him to Arrowe Park Hospital

11.30am - P desaturated again at 11.30am. He was given adrenaline.
His spontaneous circulation improved but he continued to deteriorate through the day.

11.57am - A punctured lung was identified from an x-ray taken at 11.57am, treatment started at 12.40pm.

12.40pm – treatment for punctured lung started.

3pm - The transport team arrived at 3pm. Just before they arrived, P's blood gases were taken and were satisfactory. A doctor was hopeful of P's prospects. The court hears LL said to her something like "he’s not leaving here alive is he?"

3.14pm - P's final collapse came at 3.14pm and, despite resuscitative efforts, he died at 4pm.

LL’s mother messaged LL saying it was sad what had happened on the first day back after LL's holiday.
LL: 'Yep it's just as well I love my job!'

What does LL's reply even mean?
'Yep it's just as well....
What the heck ? Her mom says it was sad the baby died on her 1st day back at work and she says
" Yep, it's just as well I love my job "


Also, she seems very 'oppositional' or difficult, even when Dr Choc is trying to be comforting:

Doc: Phew, not the first day back you were expecting. I was glad you were there, everything felt safe. Thank you for looking out for me.
LL: No, but it happens. Don’t need to thank me, I’m pleased you were there, think we work well together. Sorry for my loss of composure moment
Doc: I was trying to say thanks for checking I was okay. We do work well together I’m glad you could talk to me and I hope I helped.
LL: That’s okay, good to talk it through otherwise carry it round.
Doc: There are very few things that a hug can’t help fix.
LL: One of those days
Doc: Thank you for keeping me company again. Sleep well.
LL: Don’t be daft, it’s a two-way thing and what friends are for. You had me blubbering, night.
Doc: Oh no, how guilty do I feel. Goodnight.
LL: Guilty? I mean you had to see me blubbering at work.
Doc: Oops my mistake. I thought it had tipped you over on the end of a bad day. Blubbering at work is normal for someone who cares about the families and babies that they look after.
LL: No, no I’m fully composed. Thank you a good cry is what’s needed sometimes. Hope you sleep.
Doc: Goodnight


Noticed below, LL makes a few attempts to place blame on others and suggest possible causes of the death:

LL said O had died on the student's first day of a four-week placement. She adds who was on duty that day.
nurse: hope other two have an easy ride now for the parents’ sake.
LL: worry as identical.
LL said one colleague was upset about what had happened.
LL adds: 'Yeah worried she's missed something'

LL messaged a nursing colleague to suggest a cause of death as sepsis or NEC. She told police she thought that at the time because 'it was a discussion they had all had' on the unit."

 

[katydid23]

This struck me from the Daily Mail article:

'Dr Gibbs said the consultants had gradually come to realise that 'something very wrong was happening on our neonatal unit'.

As a group they had discussed every death and every collapse that occurred after June 2015. 'There was a common factor, and that became clear to all of us,' he said.'

So in other words LL was present for all of the deaths on the unit that year including the ones that don't form part of the charges. That's really interesting to me because one question was would the defence find instances of unexpected collapses or deaths where she wasn't present. It appears not

It has been said that there are other deaths that would still put the hospital over their usual amount of deaths in that unit in that year long period.

I am thinking that even though LL was MAYBE on the floor for those other uncharged deaths, they may not have been clear cut cases that the prosecution could win. For example, they may have included babies with serious underlying medical issues, or babies who were fragile and underweight or severely premature, or there may not have been solid evidence placing LL in that child's room preceding the collapse.

If any of those circumstances existed, they may have decided against bringing charges, so it wouldn't muddy up the cases where they allegedly had more circumstantial evidence.

 

[katydid23]

My feelings are; if you think that a nurse has been intentionally harming patients then why tf would you even let them back into the building until you had investigated??

Who has the power to stop a band 6 nurse, and long time reliable employee, from entering the building at her next shift? Any doctor or consultant that tried that would probably be stopped by security and kicked out of the building themselves.

If you think they are simply doing a bad job then you cannot simply leave them wallowing in an admin role - it is your duty as their employer to address their needs which may involve retraining or trying to discover what might be causing whatever problems they may be going through.

Retraining? How would you 'retrain' someone who you think is maliciously harming babies? That is a serious accusation and one cannot make it lightly or without some kind of proof.

I see no rational explanation the hospital can come up with here to justify their actions here.

I think the hospital was between a rock and a hard place.

 

[JosieJo]

Who has the power to stop a band 6 nurse, and long time reliable employee, from entering the building at her next shift? Any doctor or consultant that tried that would probably be stopped by security and kicked out of the building themselves.


Retraining? How would you 'retrain' someone who you think is maliciously harming babies? That is a serious accusation and one cannot make it lightly or without some kind of proof.


I think the hospital was between a rock and a hard place.

I totally agree the hospital definately was between a rock and a hard place

With LL putting in a grievance her union rep and HR plus her divisional manager would all have to look at her grievance

At the time you had consultants saying there were lots of sudden deaths and that LL was always around...that's it at this point

They didn't know about the insulin poisoning at the time and they did not have the results of the expert reviews the court has now.

Now if they have a band 6 nurse saying she has done nothing wrong and wants to return they have to look at that seriously

Personally I feel the Consultants did well to keep her off clinical duties...because they had no decision in the matter at the time in theory

Of course the management were in a rock and a hard place..they had no real evidence back then ...only an association with some of the cases she is charged with

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I agree.

I do believe that it’s so extraordinary to think that your friendly nurse colleague is killing babies, that you would think you were going crazy if you even dared to consider it, even if you saw it with your own eyes, like for Dr Jayaram and baby K (allegedly, etc).

But I think there was also an aspect of not wanting to put his head above the parapet. If he was found to be making an incorrect accusation, he would have got in trouble. And he didn’t want to risk it for himself.

The same is true for all of them: that’s why they wanted management’s support before involving the police, and that’s why they wanted management to be the ones to report it, not themselves.

That way, they cannot be accused of bullying, harassment, discrimination etc.

It’s ironic that protections against bullying have gone so far that you now cannot raise genuine concerns.

Exactly, imagine you accuse a colleague of what most people would agree to be one of the worst crimes, and you're wrong? You can't hardly go back to work together after that and just pretend you didn't report them to the police cause you thought they were murdering babies like it's no biggie.

It's a humongous professional and personal risk to take on, especially as one person. But if there's a lot of you and you have management's support and they follow procedure and report it to the police then you could say 'no harm no foul' if there's no case to answer.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I’m not familiar with the workings of the NHS but I would be thinking that I would want all correct protocols taken to ensure ( get her off the ward and get the police involved asap thereafter ) that thereafter I was watertight in letting justice take its course. Can you imagine if somehow they DID let her back on the ward and she continued due to some bureaucratic red tape that wasn’t followed through ? However management wanting her back for so long and so quickly is utterly staggering.
Just my lay person musings.

 

[marynnu]

no need!

It's seems to be merging into one now, with these last cases so close together.

True. I was looking at Baby N's case just the other day, that's my excuse!

 

[katydid23]

Hospital bosses spent 11 months reinstating Lucy Letby, trial hears

Letby, 33, is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit over the course of a year from June 2015 to June 2016.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dr Gibbs, who has since retired, said he remembered feeling 'uncomfortable' when he came into the unit on June 23, 2016, to find Baby O dying after an unexplained collapse.

I thought " Oh no, not another one. "

I'd become increasingly concerned about the unusual, unexplained and inexplicable collapses that had been happening on the neonatal unit and the fact that Staff Nurse Letby had been involved in all of them.'

He told Ben Myers KC, defending, the collapses were unique events 'that I'd never seen before in my career'.

Dr Gibbs continued: 'Medicine could never be an exact science and there were occasions when doctors were unable to find an explanation for a patient's demise.

'But this was happening again and again on our unit and that can't just be coincidence or bad luck. There had to be a cause.

'The concern I've described was becoming apparent. It was unusual that unexpected incidents kept on happening. It was a trend that had built up over time.'

It was one of the duties of Stephen Brearey, the lead clinician on the unit, to carry out reviews into baby deaths and adverse outcomes.

He knew that his colleague had raised the issue of Letby's presence 'several times', and that his concerns had gone to the hospital's risk management team to be assessed.

They had also been raised with the director of nursing and the medical director at The Countess.

....snipped.....



Dr Gibbs said: 'After the deaths of (Baby) P and (Baby) O, and regrettably, tragically, too late for them, safety measures were introduced.

'One that was introduced was that Staff Nurse Letby was removed from the unit.

'It was not a simple, straightforward procedure because a month later they met with us and told she should come back
We said that should only happen if we had CCTV in every room on the unit.

'Over the next 11 months we had to resolutely resist repeated attempts by management to have Staff Nurse Letby come back to the unit.'

....snipped.....


As a group they had discussed every death and every collapse that occurred after June 2015. 'There was a common factor, and that became clear to all of us,' he said.

He rejected Mr Myers' assertion that he and his colleagues had become 'heavily biased' against Letby.

Despite their repeated requests for action, for a period of 11 months senior managers had been 'extremely resistant to involving police'.

He added: 'We had to keep insisting the police be involved.'

 

[marynnu]

But she wasn’t suspended or dismissed, or disciplined, and presumably her salary remained the same. So what pressure could the union realistically be applying that would cause management to make continued attempts to reinstate her into that particular role. Surely it’s up to NHS what roles they place their staff into.

Although I’ve never worked for the NHS so I’m not sure, just speculating.

Edit: furthermore I could submit a grievance against my employer tomorrow without even mentioning it to my union rep. The existence of a grievance doesn’t mean the complaint had any merit.

I don't think that's quite right, to be honest. To be moved from your nursing role to admin is extremely serious - it's rare as hens' teeth & only done if you're not able to fulfil your nursing duties, such as after an injury. To be moved because of suspected incompetence would be devastating and could potentially affect your career.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

The management were pushing to have LL brought back onto the unit?

I’m speechless. At the beginning of all this, I was questioning what kind of hospital would “move someone to day shifts” to see whether the deaths followed. I balked at it. But the reality is somehow turning out to be much worse, if that’s even possible.

Management didn’t appear to have any concrete evidence against LL when they took her off duty , only what the doctors were saying.

Normal management practice in my opinion would be once you have taken her off duty, to begin an investigation to see if there was in fact any merit to what the doctors were saying or not. The impression I’m getting is that hospital didn’t start any proper investigation for nearly 11 months after she was taken off the ward and instead hoped they could just get her back on the ward by wearing down the doctors by repeatedly trying to put her back on duty. When that failed, I suppose they had no choice but to fully commit to an investigation into the collapses ; or else put LL back on duty and risk the other medics rioting and refusing to work .

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Yeh I agree. Although I’m not sure the typical scapegoat label applies here. I think it’s used to mean there are known instances of mistakes that are blamed on innocent parties. This case I think that word is used to mean there are events that don’t have explanations and they have to have a reason for them, ll became the only running theme throughout. More confirmation bias than scapegoat. Things are going wrong so someone must be to blame, rather than if innocent these events have no known medical cause and would be viewed very suspiciously but maybe without cause. So everyone is concerned and right to be so but without cause if innocent. I certainly haven’t read much that makes me think this hosp was not operating at the level that would cause errors like this. There’s a few instances of sub clinical treatment but far from blanket failings.

im finding managements position difficult to fathom. I can only assume they were thinking of LL and maybe the reaction to police involvement. If LL had a proper heart to heart with management and they believed her and still had the belief there was no evidence I think they are bound by law to protect her interests. They have to side with her regardless of what other staff were saying. Fair treatment etc. I think we will have to wait and see exac what their angle was but can only guess it revolves around the no evidence part. Remember no one saw her do anything and the post mortem came back without red flags but not sure about that. Natural causes etc.

I am surprised at ll reaction as well, 11 months of trying to Get back on the unit.

As a nurse, it is very likely that LL was a member of a trade union. If she had a grievance at work and went to her trade union saying that her employer was unfairly sidelining her from her duties without evidence, then the likelihood is that the full weight of the trade union would swing into action to assist LL, including covering her legal expenses, to fight her case against the hospital.

I imagine the hospital didn’t fancy the prospect of dealing with that.

On the other side, if you have parents who are unhappy with the care that their child has received at COCH, the recourse is to lodge a complaint via PALS or pay for their own legal representation to make a complaint. I would suggest that most regular people don’t have the funds available to pay for extensive legal representation to fight a case for them.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the hospital management was in part making decisions based on which party is most likely to create the most legal difficulty for the hospital, bearing in mind the resources available to them. I imagine they feared upsetting LL more than they feared complaints from parents without proper legal representation.

 

[katydid23]

One thing that has occurred to me. The doctors seem to have been so caught up in the environment of their workplace, that they seem to have forgotten that they didn’t need management’s permission to go to the police. Just like any other human being who sees or suspects a crime, any one of them at any point could have gone to police and said they think they were witness to a murder/assault, or that they have reason to believe such crimes have occurred.

All this time after they started suspecting, they were waiting for management’s support, and what for? Yes it would made things easier for the police investigation if everyone was cooperating, but hospital management rules are not the law.

But I don't think the police would be able to successfully investigate any of the scant evidence that they had at the time. The police would have no way to determine if the collapses were caused by medical issues or criminal issues.

The doctors didn't know about the 2 insulin cases yet. And all of the other ones needed to be assessed by medical experts.

My brother used to be a medical malpractice attorney. A few of his cases bordered upon criminal behaviour---doctors being neglectful, sometimes being hungover or using pills etc.

But the police would not have been able to investigate the cases without tremendous support from medical experts and hospital administrators who held the keys to the castle.

 

[ColourPurple]

Management didn’t appear to have any concrete evidence against LL when they took her off duty , only what the doctors were saying.

Normal management practice in my opinion would be once you have taken her off duty, to begin an investigation to see if there was in fact any merit to what the doctors were saying or not. The impression I’m getting is that hospital didn’t start any proper investigation for nearly 11 months after she was taken off the ward and instead hoped they could just get her back on the ward by wearing down the doctors by repeatedly trying to put her back on duty. When that failed, I suppose they had no choice but to fully commit to an investigation into the collapses ; or else put LL back on duty and risk the other medics rioting and refusing to work .

They did downgrade the unit in July 2016 and commissioned the independent review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and The Royal College of Nursing, re the increased neonatal mortality rates. Not sure what date they commissioned it but the visit took place September 2016 and the review was published November 2016. Wasn't there then another review of the cases before they approached police in May 2017? So they were doing "something", but why they would want to risk her going back on the ward during that time is beyond me.

ETA this article says they called for RCPCH review in June 2016 and THEN downgraded the unit. Don't know how accurate it is:

Nurse held over 8 baby murders investigated by ANOTHER hospital she worked at

A SECOND hospital is investigating a nurse at the centre of a police probe into the suspected murder of eight babies in Chester. Liverpool Women’s Hospital said today it is assisting detectiv…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[e145]

Senior doctors wanted CCTV if Lucy Letby returned to neonatal unit

SENIOR doctors demanded the installation of CCTV cameras at a hospital unit if Lucy Letby was allowed to return to nursing duties, her murder trial…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

“senior management were extremely reluctant to involve the police to discuss what had happened because we had to keep insisting the police be involved.”

WHY. What is their reason for being so reluctant, if they want her back on the ward and see nothing suspicious surely you’d just want her cleared or for the police to say ‘yeah nothing to see here’ and lay it all to rest and get a highly qualified nurse back on the ward. The parents in this case need answers for why the actual F this happened.

Were they just worried about day to day staffing issues? Did they think they could keep any investigation "in house" and avoid outside attention and scrutiny. This is hard to believe given what they were dealing with.

 

[Tortoise]

Management didn’t appear to have any concrete evidence against LL when they took her off duty , only what the doctors were saying.

Normal management practice in my opinion would be once you have taken her off duty, to begin an investigation to see if there was in fact any merit to what the doctors were saying or not. The impression I’m getting is that hospital didn’t start any proper investigation for nearly 11 months after she was taken off the ward and instead hoped they could just get her back on the ward by wearing down the doctors by repeatedly trying to put her back on duty. When that failed, I suppose they had no choice but to fully commit to an investigation into the collapses ; or else put LL back on duty and risk the other medics rioting and refusing to work .

They started investigating immediately.

8th July 2016:

It stated: “In light of this, we have asked for an independent review of our neonatal service from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and The Royal College of Nursing, which is expected to be completed by the end of August.”

Review ordered at Countess of Chester after rise in neonatal mortality

9th Feb 2017:

The review team looked at between 13 and 15 cases relating to unexpected or unexplained stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

The report was originally due to be completed by the end of August last year, but was delayed and finally published yesterday. [...]

“One of the recommendations included conducting a further thorough independent review of each neonatal death between January 2015 and 2016 to determine any factors which could have changed the outcomes.

“While this has now been completed as a matter of priority, it has led to the review taking longer than originally anticipated.

‘No single cause’ identified for rise in baby deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital

May 2017:

The hospital said it had contacted the police this month to help them rule out unnatural causes of death in its neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016. The force said it would examine the deaths of 15 babies and the collapses of six.

“Cheshire constabulary has launched an investigation, which will focus on the deaths of eight babies that occurred between that period where medical practitioners have expressed concern,” DCS Nigel Wenham said.

“In addition, the investigation will also conduct a review of a further seven baby deaths and six non-fatal collapses during the same period.”

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

 

[ColourPurple]

...“One of the recommendations included conducting a further thorough independent review of each neonatal death between January 2015 and 2016 to determine any factors which could have changed the outcomes.

“While this has now been completed as a matter of priority, it has led to the review taking longer than originally anticipated.

‘No single cause’ identified for rise in baby deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital

RSBM

Thanks @Tortoise , they were the additional case reviews I was thinking of.