Lucy Letby case: more babies face harm unless NHS ends ‘defensive leadership’

Could the dangers of “Defensive Leadership” also apply in the case of John Humphreys and the safeguarding of children? – Owl

More babies will be harmed unless “systemic changes” are made to end the “defensive leadership” and unacceptable treatment of whistleblowers in the NHS, the health service ombudsman has warned in the wake of the Lucy Letby case.

Andrew Gregory www.theguardian.com 

Rob Behrens said there were “lots of similarities” between the spate of baby death scandals in recent years and the failure of executives at the Countess of Chester hospital to act on repeated concerns raised about the neonatal nurse.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, he said rapid changes must be made to England’s maternity and neonatal services or more babies would suffer.

Senior doctors on Letby’s unit repeatedly raised concerns about her link to the growing number of unexplained deaths. But it was not until early July 2016 that her appalling crimes were finally ended.

Health workers must be “able to raise patient safety issues” and the “tribal approach” between different professions such as doctors and nurses must be eradicated, Behrens said.

Dr Stephen Brearey, a consultant paediatrician who was the first to alert an executive to Letby’s connection to unusual deaths and collapses, has claimed there was an “anti-doctor agenda” among the hospital’s executive team, which, he said, explained partly why senior executives treated the consultants’ concerns as “a case of doctors picking on a nurse”.

Behrens said: “The Letby case is unusual and horrific and not representative of the intentions and actions of the overwhelming majority of dedicated NHS staff. That said, it raises questions yet again about a dysfunctional, adversarial culture in many NHS trusts, sub-optimal methods for reporting and investigating wrongdoing and unacceptable attitudes to whistleblowing and raising concerns.

“Although the appalling actions of Lucy Letby are extremely rare, unfortunately the culture of fear in NHS trusts is not isolated to this case. Leaders dismissing the concerns of staff is a pattern of behaviour that we see repeated across the NHS.

“Some still pay a heavy price for speaking up and this victimisation discourages others from coming forward. It is unacceptable and against the principles of what the NHS stands for.”

Behrens added: “The reality is that the picture across many maternity services in the NHS is bleak, and the evidence to support this keeps mounting. Maternity services have had more policy recommendations than any other health area and there have been recent, significant, and well-documented major service failures.”

Three major inquiries since 2015 have laid bare serious failures that led to babies being harmed or dying at the Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury and Telford and East Kent NHS hospital trusts. A fourth inquiry, into the Nottingham hospital trust, is now under way.

Last week, the government announced a fifth inquiry, into how Letby was able to murder seven babies and attempt to kill six others. Pressure has been mounting from bereaved families and experts calling to strengthen the investigation to a statutory inquiry where witnesses would be compelled to give evidence.

Behrens has this week written to Steve Barclay, the health secretary, saying he supports the calls to upgrade it to a statutory inquiry.

He told the Guardian that despite the many inquiries into baby deaths in the NHS, there had been “insufficient change and implementation”, progress was too slow and patients remained in danger. “It is a tragic inevitability that until comprehensive, systemic changes to maternity care are taken seriously, more women and babies will be harmed.”

Behrens said he had identified four specific failures in the Letby case that matched patterns he had uncovered while investigating harm to patients in other NHS maternity and neonatal services.

“First, the trust leadership, both management and board were too defensive and more concerned about the reputation of their organisation than patient safety. Secondly, the board was insufficiently inquisitive or assertive and failed to show effective leadership at a critical time.

“Third, those clinicians who tried, repeatedly, to raise their concerns about the deaths were directly prevented from having the issues discussed, called troublemakers and threatened with disciplinary measures. Fourth, there was a reluctance to carry out serious incident reviews of the deaths and little or no appetite for commissioning wide-ranging independent reviews.”

People generally work in the NHS “because they want to help” and that “when things go wrong it is not intentional”, Behrens said. But the intended commitment to patient safety was often “undone” by a “defensive leadership culture across the NHS”.

While acknowledging some new NHS safety initiatives in recent years, including the creation of a specialist maternity investigation unit, he said there were “huge challenges still to be addressed”. There must also be a strategic review of the multiple public bodies tasked with patient safety so they are better coordinated and more accessible to the public.

Asked about the consequences if changes were not made, Behrens said: “Not only will families experience compounded harm, where those who have been harmed or bereaved are then subject to inadequate apologies, delayed responses, a lack of accountability and insufficient investigations, but at a systemic level, the harms and deaths will continue to happen.

“From what I have seen in casework over the years, if defensive leadership, which enables defensive cultures, is allowed to continue, more patients will be harmed and even die. We’ve seen it time and again in the various independent inquiries that have taken place.”

In a statement released after the Letby verdict, Dr Nigel Scawn, the medical director at the Countess of Chester hospital, said staff were devastated by what had happened and “committed to ensuring lessons continue to be learnt”.

“Since Lucy Letby worked at our hospital, we have made significant changes to our services. I want to provide reassurance that every patient who accesses our services can have confidence in the care they will receive,” he said.

An NHS England spokesperson said: “NHS guidance is clear, staff should be supported to raise concerns and that these are acted on. We have reminded NHS leaders about the importance of this following the verdict.

“It has updated its Freedom to Speak Up guidance, brought in extra background checks for board members to prevent directors involved in serious mismanagement from joining another NHS organisation, and now when NHS staff raise concerns, action can be taken and overseen by a non-executive who can use their independent role to hold the organisation to account.”

One thought on “Lucy Letby case: more babies face harm unless NHS ends ‘defensive leadership’

  1. The “Defensive Leadership” we are still seeing in the John Humphreys scandal appears rather more complex than in the Lucy Letby case.

    While there can be no hierarchy in the nature of the crimes themselves, a comparison of the unacceptable actions of the officials in the two situations makes interesting reading.

    I believe it is fair to say that however appalling the decisions of the officials who protected Letby, their actions are considered to be made on the basis of disbelief that an apparently committed nurse could commit these crimes, as well as on reputation management of the hospital and trust.

    With Humphreys, on the other hand, over 30 years of failure, or worse, is still being covered up by two organisations and elements in a third. Four if there is masonic involvement. Certainly the perpetrator himself was a mason, and the deceased conservative councillor who breached omertà about the police investigation in 2016 was a mason also, with links to Humphreys.

    Devon and Cornwall police are determined that they should milk public praise for the successful prosecution by a group of officers apparently restricted in how they could conduct the investigation and prosecution. No sign of the commendations yet, such as those that followed the successful, unconstrained, Dance brothers prosecutions.

    The public and the victims are not considered deserving of full or even basic explanations of at least five failed investigations and one IOPC complaint relating to four known victims of Humphreys, one of whom was apparently also threatened and harassed by an officer, according to the findings of the IOPC complaint as discovered by Verita.

    This is fundamentally about protection of well connected individuals, as well as the organisation. Puzzling aspects of the police investigation in at least one case were highlighted by the judge to the jury, and as is now known, at least one victim was prevented by police and CPS from giving full facts in court, on the basis that “now is not the time”. So when is the time?

    Devon County Council have produced a report from a former Ofsted Inspector who, according to EDDC’s CEO has a strong level of familiarity with his clients, and which was transparently a whitewash even before the Verita supplementary report produced evidence that the DCC investigator had been misled in terms of whether meetings happened or whether there were formal minutes available.

    Amongst other failures the DCC report failed to state the level of Humphreys’ potential access to schoolchildren on their premises, including such basic facts as the number of schools to which he had access. One serious example, to which there were clues in both the redactions and in a newspaper article actually referenced in their inspector’s report, appears to give Humphreys access to a DCC school with a boarding facility, from 1992 until presumably his arrest. A school which had significant changes to it’s administration during the period following his arrest, but before he came to court. These included a change of head, the closure of the boarding facility, and finally the handover of an apparently successful stand alone academy to a multi academy trust.

    There has also been no apparent attempt by police or Devon County Council to clarify why the perpetrator in 1990/91 was allegedly not identified at the time, given the significant means of identification which the victim was able to provide 25 years later. Did the police and secure unit staff in 1991 not seek any relevant information before the victim retracted, apparently in the belief this was the only way to achieve his own release? Of course this victim has not publicly come forward to seek redress so they feel even less need to bother about him now.

    As for the involvement of East Devon District Council, why on earth has this been made an issue by the defensiveness of people who were clearly, hopefully, themselves not involved in any criminal conduct relating to the scandal?

    Why did the CEO spend public money on an apparently partisan unauthorised barrister’s opinion, apparently seeking only to protect officers and Conservatives? Does he not think those non Conservatives who became aware between 2016 and the trial are worthy of equal protection, if such is necessary?

    Why was it not relevant to ask who at EDDC might have known something before 2016? 2012-14 perhaps?

    Why did the same CEO use the time for which we pay him to confect an explanation of constraints on police which is the opposite to most people’s understanding, and which is the opposite to the findings of the subsequent Verita report on the same matter? Why did he consider it was appropriate to comment at all on the police, especially when linking references that either said the opposite of what he claimed for them, or otherwise were irrelevant in terms of their date? Was this to protect the fMO, who we are now aware was significantly more compromised than we were led to believe at the time? Or was it actually to protect and show solidarity with the police, who had been such good friends to him and associates in the past?

    Why then subsequently did the fMO, shown by the Verita supplementary report to be far more compromised than we were originally aware, and at the time one of the group subject to the CEO’s apparent coercive control in respect of their evidence to the main Verita enquiry, consider that he was a fit and appropriate person to dismiss a complaint from the public in respect of the CEO’s attempts to mislead councillors as described in these paragraph’s above?

    Why did the responsible County council cabinet member Cllr Leadbetter, a leading mason, tell Cllr Jess Bailey in a televised public meeting that “she should stop asking questions about this”, in a menacing manner?

    Humphreys got away with his crimes for over 30 years, yet people are still actively preventing the truth from coming out.

    Why?

    Like

Comments are closed.