Latest news with #CountessOfChester
The Guardian
08-08-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Emergency care at Lucy Letby hospital falls short of legal standards, CQC finds
Emergency care at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked is falling far short of legal standards, the healthcare watchdog has found, with routine corridor care and 'critical gaps' in sepsis treatment. The Countess of Chester hospital, in north-west England, was issued with an urgent warning notice after inspectors found 'repeated breaches' of regulations in its emergency care unit. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated the A&E as 'inadequate' and the overall service as 'requires improvement'. Letby, who worked on the Countess's neonatal unit, is serving 15 whole-life prison terms after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another seven between June 2015 and June 2016. The 35-year-old former nurse has asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review her convictions in the hope of overturning them at the court of appeal. Inspectors found 'visibly dirty equipment', poor infection control, overcrowding, prolonged handover times and corridor care that 'compromised dignity and safety'. The 42-page report, due to be published in the coming days, said there were 'critical gaps' in the hospital's sepsis treatment and mental health risk assessments. The latest data from June 2024 suggested it was only treating 59% of sepsis patients within an hour, far short of the 84% target. Karen Knapton, a CQC deputy director, said the Countess had failed to address previous concerns about its emergency services 'which continued to place people at risk'. She said: 'People were sometimes held in ambulances for prolonged periods of time due to this limited capacity in the department. We also saw someone with suspected sepsis not receiving treatment according to national guidance placing them at risk of harm. 'Staffing gaps combined with a very busy department meant people being cared for in corridor beds had become normalised. People with complex needs, such as those with learning disabilities or mental health conditions, often experienced even longer wait times resulting in an overall poorer experience.' Jane Tomkinson, the chief executive for Countess of Chester hospital NHS foundation trust, said she was 'disappointed' by the CQC rating and that it had taken immediate action. 'Whilst we have seen improvements, it is clear the actions taken in the last 12 months need to be enhanced to consistently deliver the experience and care our patients deserve. 'Our focus remains on addressing some longstanding challenges and we are committed to supporting our teams to ensure that the actions we take lead to sustainable improvements in our services.'
The Independent
17-07-2025
- Health
- The Independent
List of patients waiting longest for hospital treatment, by deprivation area
Airedale: 0.5% in most deprived areas, no data for least deprived areasAlder Hey Children's: 2.4%, 1.8%Ashford & St Peter's Hospitals: no data, 2.1%Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals: no data, 0.5%Barnsley: 0.7%, no dataBarts: 4.1%, 3.6%Bedfordshire: 2.4%, 2.6%Birmingham Women's & Children's: 0.9%, 1.6%Blackpool Teaching Hospitals: 5.4%, 3.7%Bolton: 3.5%, 3.3%Bradford Teaching Hospitals: 0.6%, no dataBuckinghamshire: no data, 2.7%Calderdale & Huddersfield: 0.2%, no dataCambridge University Hospitals: 3.4%, 4.3%Chelsea & Westminster: 1.4%, 1.9%Chesterfield Royal: 3.5%, 3.5%Countess of Chester: 9.9%, 8.1%County Durham & Darlington: 0.9%, 1.3%Croydon Health Services: 1.2%, 2.5%Dartford & Gravesham: 3.4%, 2.9%Doncaster & Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals: 2.7%, 4.9%Dorset County: 1.4%, 1.9%East & North Hertfordshire: no data, 1.6%East Cheshire: no data, no dataEast Kent Hospitals University: 3.2%, 2.9%East Lancashire Hospitals: 4.1%, 4.0%East Suffolk & North Essex: 3.6%, 3.2%East Sussex: 1.8%, 1.6%Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals: no data, 1.6%Frimley: no data, 3.4%Gateshead: 0.4%, no dataGeorge Eliot Hospital: 3.6%, 3.9%Gloucestershire Hospitals: 0.0%, no dataGreat Ormond Street: 3.1%, 4.9%Great Western Hospitals: 2.0%, 1.6%Guy's & St Thomas': 2.3%, 2.0%Hampshire Hospitals: no data, 3.6%Harrogate & District: no data, no dataHomerton Healthcare: 0.7%, no dataHull University Teaching Hospitals: 3.8%, 3.0%Imperial College Healthcare: 2.1%, 2.4%Isle of Wight: no data, no dataJames Paget University Hospitals: 5.1%, 4.8%Kettering General Hospital: 1.3%, 0.9%King's College Hospital: 2.9%, 1.5%Kingston & Richmond: 0.0%, 0.6%Lancashire Teaching Hospitals: 4.0%, 2.6%Leeds Teaching Hospitals: 3.4%, 2.8%Lewisham & Greenwich: 4.7%, 5.1%Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital: no data, 4.3%Liverpool University Hospitals: 4.9%, 2.8%Liverpool Women's: 3.5%, no dataLondon North West University: 2.7%, 2.7%Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells: 0.0%, 0.0%Manchester University: 4.6%, 3.4%Medway: 4.2%, 5.6%Mersey & West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals: 3.1%, 2.7%Mid & South Essex: 7.8%, 6.6%Mid Cheshire Hospitals: 7.0%, 4.5%Mid Yorkshire Teaching: 0.9%, 0.6%Milton Keynes University Hospital: 5.2%, 5.1%Moorfields Eye Hospital: 0.0%, no dataNorfolk & Norwich University Hospitals: 4.8%, 4.3%North Bristol: 0.4%, 0.4%North Cumbria Integrated Care: 2.9%, 3.1%North Tees & Hartlepool: 1.2%, 0.9%North West Anglia: 3.7%, 3.6%Northampton General Hospital: 1.1%, 1.2%Northern Care Alliance: 3.9%, 4.6%Northern Lincolnshire & Goole: 2.7%, 3.5%Northumbria Healthcare: no data, 0.0%Nottingham University Hospitals: 2.1%, 1.8%Oxford University Hospitals: 3.3%. 3.4%Portsmouth Hospitals University: 4.8%, 4.1%Queen Victoria Hospital: 3.8%, 1.7%Royal Berkshire: no data, no dataRoyal Cornwall Hospitals: 1.0%, no dataRoyal Devon University Healthcare: 4.1%, 2.6%Royal Free London: 3.3%, 2.9%Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital: no data, 1.1%Royal Papworth Hospital: no data, 1.4%Royal Surrey County Hospital: no data, 5.2%Royal United Hospitals Bath: 2.5%, 2.0%Salisbury: no data, 0.7%Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals: 1.9%, 1.4%Sheffield Children's: 2.9%, 2.1%Sheffield Teaching Hospitals: 2.3%, 2.2%Sherwood Forest Hospitals: 1.6%, 1.0%Somerset: 3.0%, 2.9%South Tees Hospitals: 3.4%, 3.1%South Tyneside & Sunderland: no data, 0.0%South Warwickshire University: 7.1%, 2.2%St George's University Hospitals: 5.1%, 2.2%Stockport: 3.8%, 3.0%Surrey & Sussex Healthcare: no data, 1.7%Tameside & Glossop Integrated Care: 0.0%, 0.0%The Christie: 0.0%, 0.0%The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre: 0.0%, 0.0%The Dudley Group: 1.3%, 0.9%The Hillingdon Hospitals: 0.0%, 1.4%The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals: 1.5%, 1.5%The Princess Alexandra Hospital: no data, 5.3%The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn: 2.3%, no dataThe Robert Jones & Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital: 7.8%, 9.1%The Rotherham: 2.3%, no dataThe Royal Marsden: 0.0%, no dataThe Royal Orthopaedic Hospital: 3.9%, 3.6%The Royal Wolverhampton: 3.9%, 2.7%The Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital: 2.3%, 2.4%The Walton Centre: 0.8%, 1.4%Torbay & South Devon: 2.8%, 2.5%United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals: 2.9%, 3.0%University College London Hospitals: 2.3%, 1.9%University Hospital Southampton: 2.5%, 2.1%University Hospitals Birmingham: 5.9%, 4.8%University Hospitals Bristol & Weston: 1.4%, 1.5%University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire: 2.8%, 3.1%University Hospitals Dorset: 3.5%, 3.2%University Hospitals of Derby & Burton: 1.9%, 2.0%University Hospitals of Leicester: 2.7%, 2.0%University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay: 1.8%, 1.0%University Hospitals of North Midlands: 2.9%, 2.2%University Hospitals Plymouth: 3.8%, 3.8%University Hospitals Sussex: 6.0%, 5.1%Walsall Healthcare: 0.2%, no dataWarrington & Halton Teaching Hospitals: 5.2%, 4.7%West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals: no data, 1.7%West Suffolk: 8.7%, 4.4%Whittington Health: 1.3%, no dataWirral University Teaching Hospital: 3.1%, 2.3%Worcestershire Acute Hospitals: 2.1%, 1.5%Wrightington, Wigan & Leigh: 3.9%, 3.9%Wye Valley: 3.8%, 2.7%York & Scarborough Teaching Hospitals: 3.2%, 2.7%
Telegraph
02-07-2025
- Telegraph
Police failed to tell Letby she could be facing further charges
Police failed to tell Lucy Letby that she could be facing further charges, forcing her to find out through 'gossipy' leaks to the press, her barrister has complained. Mark McDonald, defending Letby, said it was concerning that police did not 'have the courtesy' to inform her legal team that it was passing a new file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The file is thought to relate to new baby deaths and non-fatal collapses at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women's Hospital between 2012 and 2016. Mr McDonald argued that evidence of Letby's innocence was now 'overwhelming' and said he was concerned that police were using journalists 'as a conduit for leaked gossip'. He said: 'One could be cynical and say that the police are afraid of what will happen when Lucy's conviction is overturned. 'We will cross every bridge when we get to it, but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution's unfounded allegations.' 'Carefully consider the evidence' Letby, 35, from Herefordshire, was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill seven others while working at the Countess of Chester in 2015 and 2016. But since the trial, scores of scientists, medics and politicians have come forward to question how the trial was conducted, while a panel of eminent experts has reviewed the cases and concluded that there were no murders. Jeremy Hunt, who was health secretary during the period when Letby worked at the Countess of Chester, has said there are 'serious and credible' concerns regarding the conviction. The case is currently under consideration by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which looks into potential miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is expected to report back by Christmas. Following her convictions, Cheshire Constabulary announced that it would be investigating more attacks at the Countess of Chester and elsewhere, and officers have interviewed Letby in prison on several occasions. A spokesman for the force said: 'We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neonatal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women's Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.' The CPS confirmed that it had received the file and said it would 'carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any criminal charges should be brought'. A spokesman said: 'As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.'
Telegraph
01-07-2025
- Telegraph
Why these arrests are bad news for Lucy Letby
The twists and turns of the Lucy Letby case have taken a new, troubling direction. On Tuesday, Cheshire Constabulary announced that it had arrested three members of the senior leadership team at the Countess of Chester hospital, where the babies that Letby was convicted of murdering were in her care. The allegation is gross negligence manslaughter – the implication being that managers were criminally negligent in not preventing Letby from carrying out her deadly campaign on their wards. The problem with this investigation is that there is now serious doubt that any murders took place at all. Scores of experts have voiced concerns, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has enlisted a huge team to examine the case. It is expected to report back before Christmas. For the police to not only refuse to acknowledge the serious doubts that have arisen since Letby's conviction, but to also double down by arresting the management feels not only tactical, but a little vindictive. After all, if the CCRC determines that the conviction is unsafe and Letby is eventually acquitted – a very real possibility – then the decision of management to question the suspicions of finger-pointing consultants will be entirely vindicated. It is also hard to see how the management team could have acted differently when consultants came to them claiming that a killer nurse was on the prowl. Evidence to the Thirlwall Inquiry, which is looking into how the attacks could have been prevented, revealed that doctors provided no proof that Letby was guilty, simply having a 'gut feeling' because she was present when some of the babies collapsed. Despite this flimsy reasoning, the management took Letby off the wards and carried out several internal and external reviews attempting to get to the bottom of the high death rate. Even when hospital bosses did agree to contact police in May 2017, the Assistant Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary told them he did not think the threshold for a criminal investigation had been met. It was not until Ravi Jayaram, a consultant, later claimed that he had caught Letby failing to help a collapsing baby that police launched a full inquiry. That allegation had not been made to managers earlier, and is not backed up by previous emails sent by Dr Jayaram. But the timing of the new arrests feels significant. It comes just a fortnight after Jeremy Hunt, a former health secretary, called for an 'urgent re-examination' of the Letby case, saying that 'serious and credible' questions had been raised by experts. Last week, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, also announced a rapid national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal health services following a string of scandals. Just as the narrative is tipping in Letby's favour, Cheshire Constabulary has issued an investigation update, and it is not the first time the force has done so. In March, lawyers representing former executives at the Countess of Chester asked for the Thirlwall Inquiry to be paused while criminal cases against the nurse were reviewed. But on the eve of legal arguments about the submission, Cheshire Constabulary announced it was expanding the scope of its inquiry to include gross negligence manslaughter against 'individuals at the hospital.' Now those same individuals have been arrested and bailed. Arresting someone does not mean that charges will be brought, only that they can now be interviewed under caution. But the managers could have been invited for a voluntary interview under caution, meaning this announcement by the police feels performative and unnecessary. The arrests also play into the hands of those who will not even consider that Letby could be innocent, and will not go unnoticed by the CCRC. And it raises the prospect that if charges are brought, reporting restrictions will be re-imposed, making it harder to publicly query the Letby convictions. In Tuesday's update, Cheshire Constabulary also pointed out that it was continuing to investigate Letby for more offences at the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women's Hospital, where she worked as a trainee. It is unclear how new charges would affect the CCRC review, but they would undoubtedly cause a new, unwanted headache for her defence team. Senior management find themselves in the line of fire whatever a new Letby verdict. If she remains guilty, they ignored the doctors and allowed a serial killer to roam the wards unchecked. If she is innocent, they missed one of Britain's worst maternity scandals and failed to tackle doctors attempting to lay the blame for their failings on an innocent nurse. Earlier this month, Nottinghamshire Police launched a corporate manslaughter investigation into failings at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust that led to hundreds of babies dying or being injured. The Letby investigation has cost millions, and if her convictions are overturned, serious questions will need to be asked about why Cheshire continued to pursue the case at taxpayers' expense when there were clear issues.
Irish Times
01-07-2025
- Irish Times
Lucy Letby case roils Britain's legal and medical establishments
A slight mishap while on a trip to the northwest of England during a political campaign some time back required that I attend hospital for a routine test. It was nothing in the end, a brief interlude to my day and of no consequence at all. But as I arrived at the hospital entrance, I craned to read the big sign as we drove past: the Countess of Chester hospital. Its notoriety immediately registered. 'This is the Lucy Letby hospital,' I thought, recalling the 2023 conviction of a neonatal nurse from the hospital. She was found guilty of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six more between June 2015 and June 2016. She was later convicted of a seventh attempted murder in a second trial. The Letby verdict was billed at the time as her country's worst ever case of the mass killing of children, a horror show that roiled the British nation. How could this seemingly unremarkable woman carry out such a campaign of death under the noses of hospital bosses? Why would anybody do such things? READ MORE Two years on, the story around Letby is morphing into a horror show of a potentially different variety for Britain's medical and legal establishments. The 35-year-old languishes in prison serving a whole-life order. As it stands, she will never be released. Yet after four court cases – two trials and two failed appeals – almost two years into a public inquiry and deep into a fresh police investigation of events at the hospital, the sense is that Britain is even less certain now of what happened than it was before. Letby's case is now being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Political pressure is growing on it to speed up its examination and, if it finds it warranted, to refer the case back to the courts as a potential miscarriage of justice There were murmurings about Letby's conviction soon after the verdicts. There was no direct physical evidence linking her to any incident. Nobody had seen her harm a baby. One doctor had given evidence that he walked in on Letby as she stood by while a baby, its breathing tube apparently dislodged, was in distress. Almost all the prosecution case against Letby hinged on a statistical argument that it could only have been her who could have perpetrated the incidents. She was the common denominator, always on shift when things went wrong, always in some way involved. There was also a note of Letby's, written after she fell under suspicion, where she scrawled 'I killed them ... I did this'. Another doctor gave expert medical evidence that, it was argued, showed the babies had been attacked. Sometimes it was by having air injected in their bloodstream, others apparently poisoned with insulin. The sense that a rethink might be needed gathered pace at the beginning of this year when David Davis MP, a respected former Tory minister, stood up in the House of Commons and said there was 'no hard evidence' that Letby did anything wrong. Davis is known for campaigning on alleged miscarriage of justice cases. Letby had changed legal team. They contacted Davis, who said he had seen a dossier of medical evidence that suggested Letby's conviction was potentially unsafe. Soon, we all saw it. In February, I was among a group of journalists who gathered in a grand, oak-panelled room near the Palace of Westminster to hear from representatives of a global independent panel of 14 medical experts assembled for Letby's legal team. The chair of that panel of experts, retired Canadian neonatal expert Shoo Lee, said the panel 'did not find any murder'. Instead, he argued, all of the cases could be explained by hospital neglect or natural causes. Davis later revealed he had seen leaked emails that contradicted the evidence of the doctor who apparently had walked in on Letby, the only testimony from a medical professional that directly linked her to any alleged incident. In the emails Davis saw, a paediatrician wrote that Letby had called the doctor into the room that day. Davis said the doctor who had given evidence should be investigated by police. Letby's case is now being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Political pressure is growing on it to speed up its examination and, if it finds it warranted, to refer the case back to the courts as a potential miscarriage of justice. On Tuesday, it emerged Cheshire police had arrested three managers who worked at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, as part of an investigation into possible gross negligence manslaughter. Police said it did not 'impact on the convictions of Letby'. That is a truism. Only a court decision can have an impact on her conviction. All the while, a public inquiry chaired by appeal court judge Kathryn Thirlwall trundles along. It was established with its starting point the assumption that Letby is a remorseless mass murderer. Yet in the background swirls a growing campaign that maintains her conviction is unsafe. The inquiry's report has been delayed until next year. Where might Letby be by then? That might depend on the CCRC and the courts. In the meantime, the distraught parents of 13 babies (Letby was convicted of trying to kill one of them twice) will be in a hell of somebody else's making, their grip possibly loosened on answers they had believed were settled.
