I’m so confused as to how insulin levels could continue to be high / glucose levels low just from contaminated lines if the bag had been replaced. Or; are they saying that the insulin levels potentially had been much higher, but when the blood was drawn it was 4,765? Can someone survive levels higher than that?!Something you just said made things fall into place.
A new bespoke TPN bag was ordered from pharmacy.
That MUST surely mean that they were using a stock bag temporarily until a new bag arrived. If they had reconnected the first bag, there would have been no reason to change it (given, of course, that they had no idea or thought that the first bag was contaminated and would not have any idea for at least another week)
Instead, the intention was to replace it with one tailored for the baby. Meaning that the bag used between 10am and 4pm had to have been a stock bag.
aah no so where does this leave usSomething you just said made things fall into place.
A new bespoke TPN bag was ordered from pharmacy.
That MUST surely mean that they were using a stock bag temporarily until a new bag arrived. If they had reconnected the first bag, there would have been no reason to change it (given, of course, that they had no idea or thought that the first bag was contaminated and would not have any idea for at least another week)
Instead, the intention was to replace it with one tailored for the baby. Meaning that the bag used between 10am and 4pm had to have been a stock bag.
Also just checked the wiki, it says that they changed the TPN to a peripheral line. PP mentioned that it's fine using cold blood through a peripheral line was done as safer than a central line. Maybe this is why it was moved when it was tissued? So that the bag could be used cold and the dextrose could go via the new long line.Something you just said made things fall into place.
A new bespoke TPN bag was ordered from pharmacy.
That MUST surely mean that they were using a stock bag temporarily until a new bag arrived. If they had reconnected the first bag, there would have been no reason to change it (given, of course, that they had no idea or thought that the first bag was contaminated and would not have any idea for at least another week)
Instead, the intention was to replace it with one tailored for the baby. Meaning that the bag used between 10am and 4pm had to have been a stock bag.
BA’s victim survived it his were in the tens of thousands!I’m so confused as to how insulin levels could continue to be high / glucose levels low just from contaminated lines if the bag had been replaced. Or; are they saying that the insulin levels potentially had been much higher, but when the blood was drawn it was 4,765? Can someone survive levels higher than that?!
The expert thinks that the level of insulin would have been the same throughout the entire period of the bags being up.I’m so confused as to how insulin levels could continue to be high / glucose levels low just from contaminated lines if the bag had been replaced. Or; are they saying that the insulin levels potentially had been much higher, but when the blood was drawn it was 4,765? Can someone survive levels higher than that?!
They were also treating it. Luckily!BA’s victim survived it his were in the tens of thousands!
I thought that was baby Paul and he’d passed away? I haven’t looked hugely into her case though so apologies if I’m picking it up wrong.BA’s victim survived it his were in the tens of thousands!
I don't think it is indisputable, but leaving that aside for a moment, I think the devil IS in the detail. The low glucose readings continued throughout the night shift and throughout the following day, in spite of a change to a stock bag (apparently) and the administration of bolus doses of dextrose. If the prosecution case is that bag No1 was contaminated AND bag No2 was contaminated then they need to show how LL could be responsible for both, given that she was long gone by the time bag No2 was deployed.One area where there is no vagueness is that he’s absolutely sure the first bag is contaminated. I agree, it doesn’t look like there is a clear picture of exactly how the baby continued to be poisoned, the vagueness of that picture though isn’t the one that’s key for the crime having been committed. I don’t think it throws any shade at all on the first bag having to have poisoned the baby therefore- the issue is who did that. There isn’t any vagueness where it matters and it’s not the experts problem to say exactly how the baby continued to be poisoned, only to give possibles. He is certain the first bag is poisoned because there is indisputable evidence there.
He survived xI thought that was baby Paul and he’d passed away? I haven’t looked hugely into her case though so apologies if I’m picking it up wrong.
Oh wow that level seems huge as I know it was in the 40 thousands something!He survived x
A twin baby girl died of suspected insulin poisoning and potassium poisoning, but Paul crampton survived.
The previous theory was that the insulin has clung to the plastic used to administer, therefore maintaining poisoning throughout the day. However the evidence we've heard over the past couple of days is that the nurse would have always replaced everything, and that the rate of infusion would have been consistent regardless of which bag. The only explanation for the prosecution is that LL contaminated both bags.I don't think it is indisputable, but leaving that aside for a moment, I think the devil IS in the detail. The low glucose readings continued throughout the night shift and throughout the following day, in spite of a change to a stock bag (apparently) and the administration of bolus doses of dextrose. If the prosecution case is that bag No1 was contaminated AND bag No2 was contaminated then they need to show how LL could be responsible for both, given that she was long gone by the time bag No2 was deployed.
BA’s child insulin poisoning victim survived a blood insulin level 10 times higher than that. The second highest reading ever recorded.I’m so confused as to how insulin levels could continue to be high / glucose levels low just from contaminated lines if the bag had been replaced. Or; are they saying that the insulin levels potentially had been much higher, but when the blood was drawn it was 4,765? Can someone survive levels higher than that?!
Or that the nurse didn’t change the bag when she was supposed to ?The previous theory was that the insulin has clung to the plastic used to administer, therefore maintaining poisoning throughout the day. However the evidence we've heard over the past couple of days is that the nurse would have always replaced everything, and that the rate of infusion would have been consistent regardless of which bag. The only explanation for the prosecution is that LL contaminated both bags.
Has the second babies reading been reported?BA’s child insulin poisoning victim survived a blood insulin level 10 times higher than that. The second highest reading ever recorded.
Possibly but rereading the reporting there were a fair few references to a second bag being used, if there hadn't been then either side could have interjected to clarify but it reads like fact.Or that the nurse didn’t change the bag when she was supposed to ?
maybe, but I don’t think so or why would it have been included in the opening statement as a possible explanationPossibly but rereading the reporting there were a fair few references to a second bag being used, if there hadn't been then either side could have interjected to clarify but it reads like fact.
No but I think they are saving this particular part of information! Could be wrong but that’s been my thoughts for a while now like a sort of shock factor moment to come.Has the second babies reading been reported?
Yes, but I think the machine used could only record a maximum reading of 500.Has the second babies reading been reported?
I didn’t think they did, but I may be wrong. I just read thatYes, but I think the machine used could only record a maximum reading of 500.
The baby’s reading reached that level but who knows how much higher it could have been?
Oops! Am I wrong on that? Might have to re-read the wiki.
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?