Lucy Letby Case #8

[Emmelina Ball]

I think the notes can be written retrospectively? I understood the ‘at 1pm’ comment as referring to the time the UVC was inserted

Ah ok the way it’s worded is quite confusing. It reads like it was shown to the court at 1pm but obviously it’s only 11am so that couldn’t be true thanks

 

[slingo16]

You probably need a medical expert to explain that. We will be hearing from at least 5 very soon.

https://www.ebscohost.com/promoMaterials/January_2016_-_Air_Embolism_in_the_Newborn.pdf

This one made more sense but can’t say i fully understood maybe useful to you?

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I know people are saying he probably changed his mind that the line was placed right and wasn’t the issue as he is now experienced and not a junior doctor. But surely even if you remember the events well you wouldn’t remember the exact positioning of the line and that it was definitely in the right place?

There was an x-ray taken.

 

[slingo16]

They did an overview of their case for each baby.

Today with the deeper digging is agreed statements. Damning evidence will be in the prosecutions case.

What makes you certain of that?

 

[veevee04]

I think it makes it less likely if the other nurse was there when the dextrose was given/started. As there’s no mentioned if anything else being given, so all it would’ve taken for the other nurse to notice her giving an air bolus was to look up and see her injecting anything? As nothing else was meant to be given? If there was something else and the other nurse thought she was giving that then I can see how she could’ve give an air bolus. But the risk of her not needing to give anything and risking just giving air without the excuse it was something else, I don’t know?

Reading through Child A had a UVC and it even says on the clinical guidance left open it can cause an air embolism due to pressure that doesn't need an injection of air. The UVC had already been incorrectly placed and had to be fixed.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

That says administered through. Not injected when inserting.

So do you think based on that the prosecution wrong then? Isn’t their allegation that she injected the baby with air?!

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I’ve seen in reports from other trials that jury members ask questions but it goes via the judge. I don’t know if there are limits on how often or when. Surely they must allow it if they don’t understand something though it it could jeopardise the trial?

I’d be really annoying on a jury and probably get told no more questions. I had a colleague once tell me she hated going on a training session with me because I ask too many questions I’m just too curious

Nothing wrong with being curious!
Do you know if, at the end of the trial, when the jury are sent to deliberate, can they ask for certain points to be explained more fully? Say there was a debate about the UVC, for example, and the jury just weren’t getting the technical aspects of it, could they ask for further information before reaching a verdict?

 

[Weeder]

That the kidneys are working well?
Like you’ve slept all night, get up in the morning and are bursting for a pee? The bladder is a bag for a reason. I’m not equating children and adults with babies, it’s just a general rule.

That's assuming the fluid is available to pee out and commensurate with what's gone in.

 

[veevee04]

I thought there was side rooms like there is at my place of work. I wonder how many babies she supposedly attacked in view of the nurses station.

 

[Milktray]

this conversation was also reported the other way around too so it’s hard to know exactly what was said

I believe so... it was the DM who reported it differently to both BBC and Chester (who were there)...who knows!

 

[slingo16]

I have never come across air embolism (air injected into the bloodstream) as a cause of death in a neonate. I have, however, sadly come across death on many occasions with no definitive cause, and it is put down to prematurity.

Very early in my training I was taught by nurses senior to me the dangers of air embolism, and the importance of zero bubbles in central lines and infusions. So although not everything is seen in practice, the knowledge of risk is there. If you are administering anything into a baby's bloodstream, you surely know of the dangers of air embolism.

Would you say it’s easy to spot once it’s occurred? Before or after death?

Would there be any reason as to why the her shift change hasn’t come up in more detail in terms of when it was. Surely it can’t be disputed?

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

I have noticed the nurses say today that when Baby A died there was a lot of neonatal deaths at that time? Or am I misunderstanding?

View attachment 1665108

I interpreted that to be her saying that during the time Lucy was “active” there was a lot of neonate deaths that wasn’t usual for her in 10 years. Not that day/week

 

[Milktray]

That’s standard procedure in regulation for anyone undergoing criminal investigation. They can’t conclude their investigation on her fitness to practice until the criminal element is complete.

So is this a meeting that she would attend and 'agree' to? In other words, if she went to a meeting, face to face or virtually, regarding a suspension, it would appear that she (currently) has an intention of returning to work if cleared.

 

[slingo16]

No, because some were air embolus (into bloodstream) and some were air bolus (into stomach).
If that makes you feel better

That’s kinda comforting

although it does confuse things slightly do we know if when the air went into the stomach there was access to the blood? And when it went into the blood was there access to the stomach?

 

[Former_Antelopee]

I know people are saying he probably changed his mind that the line was placed right and wasn’t the issue as he is now experienced and not a junior doctor. But surely even if you remember the events well you wouldn’t remember the exact positioning of the line and that it was definitely in the right place?