I think it was the defence who said it was one of exclusion and Dr Dewi said its more than that. He ruled it being air embolus even before he was made aware of the skin discolouration and said that knowing that afterwards just confirmed it as a definitive cause of deathFrom what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.
Maybe for one sad death, but it being the main cause of nearly all of the babies makes it pretty clear to me … an invisible weaponFrom what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.
The machine just means that any fluids coming through the tube of the bag which LL put up, couldn't have accidentally had a huge air bubble pass through it while it ran as the machine would have alarmed. I don't think the defence have even suggested that to be a possibility, so far all they seem to have alluded to is that placing of the lines could cause complications however this would be done before it was attached to the pump.From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.
I’m as close to guilty as I’ve been so far but a mistake that goes uncorrected is going to cause the same issue over and over again.Maybe for one sad death, but it being the main cause of nearly all of the babies makes it pretty clear to me … an invisible weapon
You can by pass it to administer drugs so why can’t the mistake occur here, are they saying it could have but not 20 odd different times?The machine just means that any fluids coming through the tube of the bag which LL put up, couldn't have accidentally had a huge air bubble pass through it while it ran as the machine would have alarmed. I don't think the defence have even suggested that to be a possibility, so far all they seem to have alluded to is that placing of the lines could cause complications however this would be done before it was attached to the pump.
I get that, and he’s clearly saying that in his opinion there is no other option. Just to me it seems to read that, you don’t see something and say “air embolus” it’s more of a “i can’t see a clear cause, but I can rule some out but I can’t rule out air embolus so therefore that’s my conclusion”I think it was the defence who said it was one of exclusion and Dr Dewi said its more than that. He ruled it being air embolus even before he was made aware of the skin discolouration and said that knowing that afterwards just confirmed it as a definitive cause of death
You just administer the drugs further down the line away from the pump, you'd have to draw up the medication into a syringe and then push it through the line. For it to be an accident a qualified nurse would need to draw up enough air within the syringe alongside the meds and administer it all together. I mentioned earlier but it's almost automatic, muscle memory to tap out air, and you choose the right size syringe for the medication for example you wouldn't use a 10ml syringe for 3ml medication, you'd use a 5ml one (unless you don't have decent stock but if anything it would make you more careful and the air more obvious). The medical expert estimates around 5ml air was needed.I’m as close to guilty as I’ve been so far but a mistake that goes uncorrected is going to cause the same issue over and over again.
You can by pass it to administer drugs so why can’t the mistake occur here, are they saying it could have but not 20 odd different times?
Yes he's holding up really well against cross examination! Much better than the other witnesses.Dr Evans appears to be giving as good as he gets this afternoon and handling himself very well......!!
Is it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?You just administer the drugs further down the line away from the pump, you'd have to draw up the medication into a syringe and then push it through the line. For it to be an accident a qualified nurse would need to draw up enough air within the syringe alongside the meds and administer it all together. I mentioned earlier but it's almost automatic, muscle memory to tap out air, and you choose the right size syringe for the medication for example you wouldn't use a 10ml syringe for 3ml medication, you'd use a 5ml one (unless you don't have decent stock but if anything it would make you more careful and the air more obvious). The medical expert estimates around 5ml air was needed.
It’s forced into you very early days that you have to be careful of air bubbles when drawing meds up or giving IV fluids. I agree with the Drs today that said nurses are meticulous in making sure this doesn’t happenIs it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?
I’d like to hear what the defence come back with before fully going guilty. But to me hearing what I’ve heard and seeing what people have wrote here it seems pretty clear the defence cannot entertain air embolus as a cause of death, too many instances to justify accidents or faults with equipment.
From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.
Agreed, I was really expecting more of the defense barrister I think?! I find his questioning to be a little pedantic ? I don't see the point in it? Can someone indicate what hes trying to do? Disprove the cause of death?Yes he's holding up really well against cross examination! Much better than the other witnesses.
Yeah, even as a student, and I'm not even a general nurse. You even need to get the air out to properly measure the medication using the measurements on the side of the syringe. With 5ml of air in there it would be sloshing around inside.Is it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?
I’d like to hear what the defence come back with before fully going guilty. But to me hearing what I’ve heard and seeing what people have wrote here it seems pretty clear the defence cannot entertain air embolus as a cause of death, too many instances to justify accidents or faults with equipment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?