I also explained that a problem 'we' have (and I said I thought this applied to all the consultant Paediatricians), was that
we remain somewhat suspicious of Lucy's involvement but we don't know what she did (if anything), nor how she did it
and, obviously, we don't know that she actually did anything untoward. Even so, I made it clear that unlike the
impression given in the full version of the College review that it was only after Steve's first review (at the end of 2015)
happened to highlight an association between Lucy and many of the sudden, unexpected collapses that our suspicions
over Lucy then became aroused, each of us had already started to become worried about this association from our own
personal involvement in various episodes. Initially, we felt Lucy was just unlucky in happening to be involved in more of
these infants than other nurses but this association become steadily more worrying especially with recurrent sudden
collapses at night that stopped when Lucy was moved off nights and then, on one occasion (only that I'm aware of),
when Lucy covered a stable infant during a colleague's coffee break during which that infant unexpectedly collapsed. Ian
again mentioned that Lucy, being a young, single nurse, undertook more sessions than other nurses on the unit and so
would be expected to be associated with more 'events' but I countered that this was true but her involvement still
seemed to be unexpectedly frequent.