I wonder is this part of the reason why she was able to go on for so long (if G), as it was different Drs, consultants, nurses each time they maybe didn’t see a pattern straight away? I don’t see a problem with it looking back with hindsight now either. I think upon re-examining medical evidence, such as the notes and X-rays some doctors may change their conclusions. People can also change their opinions based on further experience they’ve come to have over the years. This was 7 years ago, so I guess some will have had another 7 years experience working with similar babies
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I didn't know they weren't often done. But also babies don't die unexpectedly so surely in these cases they'd be encouraged if they really were as unexpected and sudden as we're being told?
Hi welcome
I’m at work (just on my break) but just want to quickly reply to your post with a question. Regarding the changing her to days for more supervision because they suspected incompetence on her part, this theory has never sat right me. What doesn’t add up about this, although admittedly I don’t work in this environment, would they then put her in charge of students nurses while on days if they really thought babies were dying and collapsing because of her incompetence? Just seems so contradictory.
IMO she was placed on days as way of pacifying the few consultants who did perhaps speak up. However, no one higher up really took those concerns seriously until the pattern continued, then they thought duck we better move her out! X
Unfortunately, the NHS isn't perfect and if she was the only / one of few higher banded nurses with a previously good track record, then it is possible that students could still be placed with her. I came to the NHS after working for various private companies and I was, and still am, absolutely gobsmacked at how "irrational" it can be / is.
Obviously I can only explain our experience but they got progressively worse over a number of days, she was stopped and restarted on feeds several times, aspirates and PH levels of her NG were monitored closely. Her tummy was examined every few hours. By day 4 of life she hadn't had her first poo so that was the first warning sign, then she couldn't tolerate larger volumes of feeds she never made it past 1ml every 2 hours. Her aspirates got worse, she became uncomfortable, and would just scream because she was hungry but not physically digesting the food. Heart rate was everywhere she was having persistent bradys because of how uncomfortable she was. By day 5 she was completely NBM and had an xray and then rushed straight to surgery as the blockage was visible on the xray. It progressed quick for us.
Sorry if it doesn't make sense I've spent the past year blocking it from memory
I don’t disagree with you questioning them changing their mind at all. Don’t think it’s you trying to push the innocent train or a conspiracy theory. I think it’s reasonable to try and understand why a) this wasn’t the conclusion at the time & b) is it a fair conclusion now.
I think if the defence has stated they thought the cause of death was 100% NEC for this baby in the opening statement I’d of been more viewing the change of opinion as confirmation bias.
I actually view this as her making a extremely horrendous medical mistake & admitting it but appreciate we might view things differently
Oh goodness I'm so sorry to have asked something that has brought that up for you - that wasn't my intention at all. It sounds very traumatising, I'm very sorry you all had to go through that.
I go round so many things in my head sometimes I come back on myself. So now I'm questioning well why is she admitting it now? Well of course because she *has* to. She's a witness in a trial. But until this point she hasn't. And that doesn't sit right with me. She surely would have known at the time that it wasn't NEC? But instead of speaking up she let it go? I'm just musing out loud really.
Thankyou....as I say, my head has gone today...not quite sure what to think at the minute
This has confused me so much. So the doctor accepted NEC as the cause of death despite no sign of NEC being present on X-ray or elsewhere? Huh?
No point. The police can access search history even if you delete it. Maybe the note was on a little scrap of paper and she forgot to dispose of it.
Edit: Sorry I was going to ask a question about that attached screenshot, but then changed my mind lol.
Attachments
Last edited:
I don’t think we’ll know unfortunately. I can see it going in favour of both sides to be honest but for different reasons. Maybe the culture that’s been described on here within the NHS has something to do with it? Maybe the police investigation into a potential murderer made her question her own work. I’m just thinking if I was in their shoes, & I didn’t suspect anyone would be doing this on purpose even after being told the police were looking into it, I’d likely go back over everything I’d put my name to to see if I’d missed anything at all at the time or to see if I could prove they’d got it wrong & they were just unfortunate deaths. Maybe in her revisiting her original documentation she thought it would help prove LL innocence but what she ended up seeing was that she ducked up & there is a possibility for foul play
I think it’s the comment that they cannot be be assumed to be innocent .. they can because they haven’t been charged with any crime. They are in fact giving evidence which opens them up to scrutiny to help identify a potential serial killer. I don’t disagree that some decisions made were questionable, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that were partly responsible for the murders (if they occurred)
It's fine! I'm happy to explain it, just may not always make sense
, which begs the question how NEC could be given as a cause of death when the first diagnostic tool used is the X-ray and it was totally clear. So it doesn't add up for Baby E and not only was they failed by LL once again the hospital too.I probably worded it wrong, they are done but unless the coroner has reason to find one necessary (in this case they were evidently content with the doctors decision) then parental permission has to be sought and logistically its challenging and its a layer of distress you don't want to put parents through unless necessary. I agree she should have pushed the coroner, but the only way to have done that would have been to retract her first submission and say nope I'm not sure and it sounds like the symptoms at time of death were consistent with what was listed.
The symptoms and presentations upon death suggested NEC, she's saying having had time to review the X Rays properly and the notes in which the rate of decline doesn't match and so she's now unsure. If she had the whole picture at the time she probably would have challenged it. Do we know she hasn't previously reported it? Of course all doctors should make these decisions when in possession of all of the facts and history, it's not always possible, there literally isn't always time; welcome to the NHS.
I know looking back now it does seem kinda crazy that she accepted it, guess that’s why she apologised directly to the parents today. I’m sure it’ll be awful for her carrying that regret round with her. I do feel sorry for her a little though, and she’s not the only one that made some questionable decisions in that hospital, at least she held her hands up, and had the decency to admit her mistake and apologise to the parents
I read that some of the FB searches were found on her phone, when the police had taken it to search her phone. She maybe never even thought about the police being able to trace all your history on phone, the same way they can on the computer. She kept the picture of the sympathy card on her phone too. She kept drugs list for a baby, and obvs the medical notes, and the I did it note. Maybe she never thought the police would search her house and phone, or maybe she just couldn’t throw them out (if G) as they were her trophies
I thought court was maybe finished for the day but Mersey hack is back tweeting
Last edited:
There’s never usually just one cause of death on a certificate though.
The top cause could be say, multi-organ failure then pneumonia then some co-morbidities.
I mean, that’s not lying but it might not explain everything.
Could the death certificate for some of these babies be:
Respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest then other things?
In general, can a death certificate be altered if other evidence comes to light?
The top cause could be say, multi-organ failure then pneumonia then some co-morbidities.
I mean, that’s not lying but it might not explain everything.
Could the death certificate for some of these babies be:
Respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest then other things?
In general, can a death certificate be altered if other evidence comes to light?
Thankyou again and so sorry you have been through thisIt's fine! I'm happy to explain it, just may not always make sense
Wow heavy reading today. I’m heartbroken for the families and the precious babies that the medical staff allowed this to go under the radar for so long. Clearly that consultant was not doing her job properly if she allowed the death to be registered as being caused by NEC. If only she had investigated properly it could’ve ended the deaths there.
However, to me this doesn’t prove anything in way of LL being NG. To me it proves further that the conditions of that ward were such that LL was able to go on for as long as she did getting away with it. It probably gave her encouragement that other staff weren’t pushing for PMs or doing thorough investigations into the deaths.
I also don’t think it’s hugely shocking as I’ve had multiple people in my family who were not diagnosed with something soon enough. Where the doctor told them it was one thing only to come back months later and have changed their mind. Sadly it does happen, it’s not right but doctors aren’t all-knowing, they do make mistakes.
However, to me this doesn’t prove anything in way of LL being NG. To me it proves further that the conditions of that ward were such that LL was able to go on for as long as she did getting away with it. It probably gave her encouragement that other staff weren’t pushing for PMs or doing thorough investigations into the deaths.
I also don’t think it’s hugely shocking as I’ve had multiple people in my family who were not diagnosed with something soon enough. Where the doctor told them it was one thing only to come back months later and have changed their mind. Sadly it does happen, it’s not right but doctors aren’t all-knowing, they do make mistakes.
Also the experience gives them a chance to look back and say ‘I have never seen this before or after’. I’ve heard that multiple times which makes it even more unusual.
Were there live updates today, can some one point me in the right direction pretty please 
x
xAnswered my own question. A change can be made to a Death Certificate.
- Status