LacticacidMCB wrote:
Barks&Purrs wrote:
Doesn’t it seem like a classic example of correlation not causation?
I think there are staffing ratios and staffing levels that can be analyzed to look at whether there are sufficient number of hours of qualified care per patient. I don’t understand how those numbers are calculated and analyzed but experts clearly do. I would hope her defense investigated this.
It would be interesting to know whether the number of staffing , staffing levels, and number of deaths continued after Lucy stopped working.
It’s potentially worse than that. In a previous job, I performed investigations into manufacturing issues at a Pharmaceutical company. Prior to doing any sort of widespread look back at documents, we would have to define our scope and criteria for analysis. Their smoking gun is the correlation with deaths and adverse events. However, they never included additional adverse events after they had their pretty chart. So the chart is meaningless.
Also I know from past experiences that sometimes your best employees are involved in more human related events as 1) they do more work and 2) are often given the harder tasks.
When good employees are given harder tasks (more vulnerable patients) and there are other, unrelated shortcomings in care (insufficient beds at specialist hospitals or unavailable doctors— both true here), it appears unfair and dishonest to pin blame on the one nurse who is dealing with these multiple factors that increase the risk of bad outcomes.
What’s even worse is that the blame assigned to the nurse was malevolence. She may have been negligent. Others may have been negligent. To pin a
pattern of systemic failings that have the appearance of mere negligence and which
may have (?) jointly contributed to deaths at the hospital onto ONE person requires proof of her malevolence. There was no proof of malevolence.