I used to fly Senencas - then I grew up. How long before UK operators start to realise that the Seneca is a 'widow maker' ?
I flew the II and III doing rural ambulance operations in very mountainous terrain , in remote areas, and from rough fields including dirt airstrips illuminated with automobiles and flare pots. Of the light piston twins, the Seneca II and III have some of the highest published single engine service ceilings, and can hold about eight thousand with passengers and fuel on one engine. This is considerably different than many light twins that can't hold altitude at all on one engine.
I flew frequently at night in Senecas into rough places to pick up and move medical and trauma victims. While I'd rather have a King Air, the Seneca did just fine. Widow maker? Such melodrama.
As for beating it down because of inexperienced pilots and the like...those aren't airplane issues and one can't blame the airplane.
So far as trend monitoring...that's an operator issue, and has nothing to do with the airplane.
The airplane doesn't have twice the opportunity for an engine failure...you have the same opportunity every time with every powerplant; it's very simple; either it will, or it won't.
Piston pilots aren't trained for try to wrangle a bad situation any more than anybody else. Light piston twin pilots are drilled on the need to pull back the good engine rather than trying the impossible during an engine failure, where the case merits. If you received training to the contrary, then you received incorrect training, and certainly didn't receive what's commonly taught.