I support proactive #patientsafety but not the system making scapegoats.
-
-
I think it’s hard to say that the systemic failings were considered. All you can really say is that the systemic failings presented to, and available to the court, were considered. Not the same thing
-
I don't think anyone can say anything for sure without the trial transcript (I'm looking at you again here,
@drcmday). It's important to be clear the jury (not just the court) heard such evidence, but otherwise I wouldn't disagree. Do you think something was left out? Why, if so? -
Didn’t talk to any of the trainees on the unit: hard to see how a clear picture of “normal for that unit” could have taken place without that; wider reports into quality of training can much later
-
Ok, but if the jury got to hear what 'exceptionally challenging circumstances for that unit' were like on the day in question, then does that not better serve her defence than a more general picture of normality?
-
Not sure: things like showing a consultant an abnormal blood result and having that ignored. I learnt pretty quickly that if you challenged that or pushed for a response, you could get taken to pieces. Public humiliation. That’s a cultural issue
-
Not calling a consultant if you were worried because you didn’t expect a response or any support
-
I must say, that's the one aspect of this sorry tale where I sympathise with her position. Whatever capability is expected of her, it's only fair the consultant demonstrate the same. Looking at the appeal grounds for BG, did he escape because he arrived after point of no return?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.