UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thinking more on this charge for baby G.

At 2 am her nurse fed her 45 mls of breast milk.

"nursing note - 45mls of milk via nasogastric tube, with 'ph4' aspirates recorded. G was noted to be 'asleep' at this stage. The milk was expressed breast milk, plus fortifier and Gaviscon."

At 2.15 am baby G projectile vomited out of the cot.

LL then made a nursing note: "[G] had large projectile milky vomit at 2.15am. Continued to vomit++. 45mls of milk obtained from NG tube with air++. Abdomen noted to be distended and discoloured. Colour improved few minutes after aspirating tube, remained distended but soft. Reg. Ventress asked to review. To go nil by mouth with IV fluids. Dr called to theatre."


So clearly the implication is that 45 mls went into her empty stomach and 15 minutes later loads of milk was vomited and then 45 mls was aspirated from the tube.

The further implication is that LL had access to extra breast milk, because the designated nurse would have known how much breast milk the mum had provided, to feed her later (I think she was on three-hourly feeds).

I'm wondering if the prosecution thinks LL's text at 8.30 pm earlier in the shift was how she obtained the milk. Shame we didn't get the wording of it.

"LL texted colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation."
BMM. This makes me think that the 45mls that went in, stayed in the tube and something that would cause that would be that the stomach was already full and so the 45mls would have no where to go. Imagine when you put a straw into a glass that has liquid in it, the straw retains a level of liquid that is parallel to the level of liquid in the glass.
This is of course, just my opinion. I did pass basics physics at college but I dont remember much of it!
 
I've been wondering if any new safeguards have been put in place in neonatal units throughout the country as a result of these events. I looked online but couldn't find anything.
For new safeguards, what would you suggest? Nurses work solely in pairs? CCTC in all rooms?
 
Yes I had totally missed this from reading the evidence! How was so much vomited/aspirated when only 45mls went in? Pretty damning evidence
What I've been thinking is that we know that with baby E, LL is accused of writing fraudulent nursing notes a good three hours after he died. Most likely (imo) after the doctors and consultant, who had been speaking with the parents, had left the cotside. The "fraudulent" (according to the prosecution) notes were that -

  1. E's mother visited the unit at 8pm
  2. There had been a bile-stained aspirate at 9pm which she discarded
  3. The SHO Dr Wood (on the paediatric ward that night) had advised to omit the 9pm feed
  4. No mention of mother visiting the unit with expressed milk at 9pm, or of bleeding,
  5. E's mother had visited the unit at 10pm and became aware of bleeding then and was updated by reg. Harkness.

With baby F, the implication is that LL wrote a false blood glucose reading in his notes -

4am - 1.9
5am - 2.9 (initialled by LL)
8am - 1.7


So I've written up the sequence of what was recorded in baby G's notes, by whom, on the night she projectile vomited, to show who was aware of what at different times. I think from what I've seen here it could be interpreted that LL was carefully managing the time of, or delaying, the recording of information, so that it might go under the radar. It raises the question of why a band 6 nurse would not have flagged up the discrepancy of a 45ml aspirate of milk plus air straight after a large and continuing vomit of milk, when her feeding chart recorded that she was on 3-hourly feeds of 45mls of milk. The doctors never made clinical notes that they were told of the amount aspirated by LL. I'm presuming the aspirate was witnessed by the shift-leader at 2.15am.


2am - G's designated nurse noted on her chart she fed G 45mls of expressed breast milk. She went on her one-hour break. LL's notes say care was given by her (LL) from 2am.

2.15am - G projectile vomited. The shift-leader Ailsa Simpson (AS) and LL were at the nursing station and they ran to her. They assisted her breathing, she continued to vomit and LL aspirated her NG tube. LL was made the designated nurse by AS. LL then called Reg Ventress to urgently review G.

2.35am - Reg Ventress attended and noted G's abdomen was purple discoloured and distended. She noted she was told G "had very large projectile vomit reaching the chair next to the cot and canopy". She was called urgently to theatre.

3am - LL noted G's bowels opened.

3.15am - G desaturated and stopped breathing. Reg Ventress was called out of theatre. She decided to intubate and G was moved to Room 1. Reg V called consultant Breary to attend while she intubated G and saw blood in the windpipe beyond the vocal cords.

3.30am - consultant Breary's clinical note states "called in at 0330, large vomit and loose watery stool earlier...blood visible on intubation"

3.45am - the parents were called and came in after that.

4.49am - an x-ray showed slightly distended bowel loops and gas noted in rectum (my note - so 100mls of air aspirated just over an hour later wasn't apparent?)

5.15/5.30am - LL signed for medications and infusion prescription for G

5.30am - G had another profound desaturation. G was sedated and the ventilator was changed by Reg V. Consultant B noted need to discuss with Arrowe Park/Liverpool Hosp.

6.05/6.15am - G had another profound desaturation and Reg V decided to reintubate. The tube was removed and there was a blood clot on the end of it. 100mls of air was aspirated. G was given morphine and Reg V noted blood-stained fluid in the throat.

8.57am - well after nursing handover and probably doctor's handover - LL wrote up her nursing notes: [G] had large projectile milky vomit at 2.15am. Continued to vomit++. 45mls of milk obtained from NG tube with air++. Abdomen noted to be distended and discoloured. Colour improved few minutes after aspirating tube, remained distended but soft. Reg. Ventress asked to review. To go nil by mouth with IV fluids. Dr called to theatre."

9am - Reg Harkness noted that G was paralysed and sedated and he planned to discuss with Arrowe Park/Liverpool Hosp.



All MOO
 
Last edited:
BMM. This makes me think that the 45mls that went in, stayed in the tube and something that would cause that would be that the stomach was already full and so the 45mls would have no where to go. Imagine when you put a straw into a glass that has liquid in it, the straw retains a level of liquid that is parallel to the level of liquid in the glass.
This is of course, just my opinion. I did pass basics physics at college but I dont remember much of it!
How do nurses get the milk into the feeding tube?

Is the tube then sealed off somehow, if it is not left on free drainage?

45mls is 3 tablespoons. Would a tiny baby's feeding tube hold 45mls plus air injected?

Is feeding through a tube a slow process, as slow as a baby would normally take swallows?

Just a few questions I have, if baby G was fed extra milk and air between 2am and 2.15am, for anyone who can answer.
 
How do nurses get the milk into the feeding tube?

Is the tube then sealed off somehow, if it is not left on free drainage?

45mls is 3 tablespoons. Would a tiny baby's feeding tube hold 45mls plus air injected?

Is feeding through a tube a slow process, as slow as a baby would normally take swallows?

Just a few questions I have, if baby G was fed extra milk and air between 2am and 2.15am, for anyone who can answer.
I can only answer this with the experience I had at the NICU with my daughter. The feeding tube was attached to a open syringe, the kind you get with children's medicines or if you have dental surgery and they give you a syringe to clean the wound with water. It is not blocked completely as then the milk or medicine wouldn't be able to go down. you would very very gently hold the syringe up in the air with the milk in and it would slowly empty via gravity into the babies stomach, When not in use it was very very lightly plugged with the syringe plunger so it would not get contaminated with anything but also left a little free so air could get in and escape.
The aspirating would happen anytime between 15-30 minutes after the feed, for many reasons, for example, to see if there was milk that wasn't being digested, to remove any gas/air. If milk was aspirated it was gently and I do mean very gently pushed back into the tube and into the stomach.

And it would definitely hold 45mls, I remember my daughter being 50 mls feeds but I'm not sure about the air, but wasn't the air in the stomach and not the tube?
I found this video explaining a little better. I am not sure if it is allowed to be posted?
 
Last edited:
I can only answer this with the experience I had at the NICU with my daughter. The feeding tube was attached to a open syringe, the kind you get with children's medicines or if you have dental surgery and they give you a syringe to clean the wound with water. It is not blocked completely as then the milk or medicine wouldn't be able to go down. you would very very gently hold the syringe up in the air with the milk in and it would slowly empty via gravity into the babies stomach, When not in use it was very very lightly plugged with the syringe plunger so it would not get contaminated with anything but also left a little free so air could get in and escape.
The aspirating would happen anytime between 15-30 minutes after the feed, for many reasons, for example, to see if there was milk that wasn't being digested, to remove any gas/air. If milk was aspirated it was gently and I do mean very gently pushed back into the tube and into the stomach.

And it would definitely hold 45mls, I remember my daughter being 50 mls feeds but I'm not sure about the air, but wasn't the air in the stomach and not the tube?
I found this video explaining a little better. I am not sure if it is allowed to be posted?
It can't be posted but you can post the title of it for anyone to look up themselves.

The air was in her stomach, and I assumed the milk was too. I don't know though, would have thought it would look very apparent if the milk was in the tube when they attended to her.
 
It can't be posted but you can post the title of it for anyone to look up themselves.

The air was in her stomach, and I assumed the milk was too. I don't know though, would have thought it would look very apparent if the milk was in the tube when they attended to her.
That is very true. I was assuming the milk wouldnt be seen as it would be in the tube inside of the body and out of sight, which it could of well been, but depending on how much the actualy tube can hold then it could be visible too. From a brief search there are different kinds of tubing for the neonatal NG tubes, so some might be a little wider and hold more?

The video explaining the tube feeding is called Understanding feeding tubes and was posted by Children's Wisconsin on youtube. The specific part about Neonatal NG feeding starts at 1:07 minutes
 
It can't be posted but you can post the title of it for anyone to look up themselves.

The air was in her stomach, and I assumed the milk was too. I don't know though, would have thought it would look very apparent if the milk was in the tube when they attended to her.

The way I imagine it is the syringes that attatch to the tube can be a free flow type where if held up higher than the baby gravity slowly allows the milk flow down the tube then out into the stomach.
Or they can have a plunger like a normal syringe that can draw aspirates out or push liquid through faster.

I'd imagine anyone wanting to sabotage a baby would push milk and air through quickly using a plunger

The baby would projectile vomit normally through its mouth.

I'd imagine you wouldn't really notice too much if milk was still in the tube as the majority of the tube is out of sight in the body ...and if there was some you might not notice in an emergency situation as the nurse would likely want to aspirate the tube quickly..also its possible you may think any milk in the tube may have been forced back up during the vomiting ..imo
 
I've just watched your recommended video and another video showing a milk feed through a nasogastric tube. It says the feed should take 10 to 15 minutes to drain through of its own accord. It sounds to me as if a syringe plunger might have been used on baby G to push it through faster, with some air.
 
When you talked about Reg Ventriss and then 'she' I just realised reg is an abbreviation for registrar. Is that right? Up till now I've been thinking there was a bloke called Reg who worked a lot of nights!
I'm glad it wasn't just me!
 
I've just watched your recommended video and another video showing a milk feed through a nasogastric tube. It says the feed should take 10 to 15 minutes to drain through of its own accord. It sounds to me as if a syringe plunger might have been used on baby G to push it through faster, with some air.
That would make sense for a projectile vomit to happen after too, I think that is what @JosieJo was saying?
 
It is sad to think of a newborn preemie 'projectile vomiting.' I wonder if that is something that happens routinely? How common is that?
 
For new safeguards, what would you suggest? Nurses work solely in pairs? CCTC in all rooms?
Yes, that would be a good start. Two members of staff (not necessarily both nurses) present at all times. And cameras filming everything. Why not? When I had a part-time maternity reception job when my son was little, there was a camera on my work station the whole time. No problem.
 
Yes, that would be a good start. Two members of staff (not necessarily both nurses) present at all times. And cameras filming everything. Why not? When I had a part-time maternity reception job when my son was little, there was a camera on my work station the whole time. No problem.
I'm not sure they could afford to have 2 staff at all times. And then if you had a 2nd person, and they weren't a nurse, who would they be and how could you carefully vet them? I think that could create even more chaos, having that many unlicensed staff wandering around with access to the babies rooms.

However, full time cameras would be very smart to have. I wish we did have that footage for this case. Maybe there would be less carnage if so?
 
Yes, that would be a good start. Two members of staff (not necessarily both nurses) present at all times. And cameras filming everything. Why not? When I had a part-time maternity reception job when my son was little, there was a camera on my work station the whole time. No problem.
Yes, I agree.
Many hospitals in Russia have CCTV cameras. I think it's a good idea.
Although I suppose in the UK privacy laws will come into play and will stop it, because a patient may not be able to give consent.
I would also like to see them as standard in care homes due to the bad history of abuse in such places.
MOO
 
I'm not sure they could afford to have 2 staff at all times. And then if you had a 2nd person, and they weren't a nurse, who would they be and how could you carefully vet them? I think that could create even more chaos, having that many unlicensed staff wandering around with access to the babies rooms.

However, full time cameras would be very smart to have. I wish we did have that footage for this case. Maybe there would be less carnage if so?
Two staff in rooms with unattended babies seems reasonable. There are not many babies in these neonatal units, and they are so vulnerable. There should at least be someone keeping an eye on the cameras if only one nurse is present.

It would safeguard not only the babies, but the staff members against possible accusations, so everyone benefits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
3,961
Total visitors
4,134

Forum statistics

Threads
592,407
Messages
17,968,506
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top