Context
Alison Kelly was Director of Nursing at the Countess of Chester from 2014 to 2018. Her Thirlwall Inquiry evidence addresses the nursing-leadership response to the consultants’ concerns, her department’s appraisal records for Lucy Letby during the cluster period, and the absence of a parallel nursing escalation alongside the consultants’.
Key passages
Opening statement. Before questions began, Ms Kelly, the Trust’s Director of Nursing and Quality, asked to address the parents. She said: “I would like to express my condolences to all the Families and I am really sorry for all the distress that Families have — have experienced over the last few years and are currently experiencing as we sit here today. I didn’t get everything right at the time. However, the decisions I made were done with the best intentions.”
Not treated as safeguarding. Ms Kelly’s statement said “The increase in mortality was never viewed as a safeguarding matter”, and she agreed that covered the whole period up to when the police were notified. Asked about the 11 May 2016 meeting at which Dr Brearey raised concerns that Letby might be the cause of the increase, she said “there was never any clarity in him articulating his true concerns at that time”, though she accepted the possibility raised was that Letby “may be” deliberately harming babies. As the only person at that meeting with a safeguarding role, she said “at that time, it — it wasn’t clear to me that this was a safeguarding issue”, and agreed “reflecting back, maybe I should have done”.
The weekend after 24 June. Ms Kelly agreed that being told two senior Consultants believed Letby may have murdered a baby the previous day was “a serious concern”, though she resisted counsel’s description of it as being of “the highest degree of magnitude”. She accepted she had not asked whether Letby was rostered to work that weekend, saying “I didn’t at the time”, and that she had relied on assurances from Karen Rees that “everyone was satisfied”. Asked whether she should have taken further steps, she said: “I have reflected a lot about that and it was just a very, very difficult time”, adding: “on reflection, I — I — I could have done something differently and maybe that was a missed opportunity.”
Telling Dr Green. Shown notes of a conversation in which she described the Consultants as “fuelling the situation”, Ms Kelly agreed “It’s probably not a good choice of words”, but said it reflected poor behaviour that had led to a grievance being raised. Asked about telling Dr Green that Letby would be returning to the unit before the outcome of the reviews was known, she accepted “It was probably premature for me to say that”, and on the wider account she gave him, said: “what I do recognise is that I could have clearly — more clearly articulated the position”, while maintaining “they were not intentionally misleading”.
What the CQC was told. Asked about a call to the CQC of which the note recorded “High level reasons expressed.”, and whether that was a euphemism for not telling the regulator about the Consultants’ concerns, Ms Kelly said “it was just really difficult at the time to — to recognise what was being — what was being accused”. She agreed her email to a colleague about the resulting action plan did not mention that the Consultants were concerned about a particular member of staff, but said there were “a number of actions that were being taken on the back of their concerns”.
What to read alongside this
See our profile of Alison Kelly, and the evidence of Dr Brearey and Eirian Powell for the ward-level nursing view.