UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
not her baby to treat Whilst the DN is there.

im not sure about the other cases of alarms not sounding but if they were not hers to treat I would assume it would be the DN’s job to report. As is the case with baby I.

is there a difference in monitors between apnoea and breathing monitors? or all in one.
If a baby is not breathing properly, it does NOT matter who is the designated nurse. That is meaningless at that critical time. Anyone who sees a child in distress should immediately respond and begin treatment.

The same with the reporting of faulty alarms/monitors. If you are the one that notices an alarm is not on or not working then it is your responsibility to make notes and to report. Otherwise a nurse might be turning them off purposely and get away with it if it was done on her babies monitors.
 
In that case, it would have been better to leave without saying anything, because she wouldn't be connected in any way. I don't think that holds up.
I don't think it would have been smart to walk away without saying anything. LL was asked to watch the baby for that 15 minutes and was present when the designated nurse returned. If that baby collapsed while the nurse was making the bottle, the responsibility for the collapse would have been put on LL, because she was the last one supervising the child's care.
 
It's just my opinion but I suspect her motivations for alerting the nurse are a little more nuanced, if she's guilty.

I think LL's actions, if she's guilty, showed consciousness of situations that could escalate and backfire on her, by for instance not reporting two monitors that hadn't alarmed, texting about babies looking sick when she took over, asking who was talking about her babies, establishing a narrative amongst her friends of being bullied which might in reality have been staff questioning highly unusual collapses on her shifts, changing methods and establishing consistency of 'problems' with certain babies, putting false information in the notes etc. If LL walked away as soon as the nurse returned, baby I might have died before nurse discovered there was a problem - leaving open the hole that baby had collapsed while LL was watching her. I think LL, if guilty, had to tightly control the emergence of the problem as happening now, in front of nurse, not before.

JMO
Your input in regards to most circumstances in this case makes the most sense to me. I absolutely agree.
 
Just reading through the thread, I thought it might be a good idea to see if there are any points in the cases that can be mutually agreed upon. Put ourselves in the juries shoes so to speak. So far anyway.

maybe as a starting point and we have already covered it was which cases so far were the strongest that something had actually happened. We all agreed was the insulin.
The problem is, if we agree the insulin cases are malicious attacks, then are all the other unexplained cases just natural causes? Because once we agree that someone poisoned the babies with insulin, it is hard to then look past the other cases as natural or accidental. JMO
 
I don't think it would have been smart to walk away without saying anything. LL was asked to watch the baby for that 15 minutes and was present when the designated nurse returned. If that baby collapsed while the nurse was making the bottle, the responsibility for the collapse would have been put on LL, because she was the last one supervising the child's care.
No, once the nurse returns to the room, it's her responsibility again. If she was busy making a bottle, she wouldn't have noticed and thought it happened while she was in the room. Less likely for LL to be blamed.
 
Sounds possible. Someone infected can carry it for months or something on them lines.
No idea just thought after reading it it was quite interesting.
Would it cause a spike in sudden deaths?
 
Would it cause a spike in sudden deaths?
Yes. They should have pan-cultured the NICU to rule out an infectious cause, but I highly doubt they did. Many of the babies who died were septic. If there was an unusual new colonization, especially driven by poorer hand hygiene, it would increase infections and therefore deaths.
 
It is never good to leave a child in one's care to another person.
Why couldn't LL go to help this emergency the baby's designated nurse went to?

As a teacher I MUST NOT leave the classroom and ask somebody else to look after children.
If anything happened to one of the pupils, I would be held responsible as they were in MY care.

I think discipline was lax in this ward.
MO
Critical Care Hospitals and classrooms are different. Your students are not each severely ill, needing treatments and sudden intervention. If so, you would have to team up and take care of each other's students much as nurses do.

One child was stable and comfortably sleeping, while another child in another room needed a vital procedure. Makes sense for the most experienced nurse to stay and watch the sleeping babies while the other nurse went to help the child in need. JMO
 
Yes. They should have pan-cultured the NICU to rule out an infectious cause, but I highly doubt they did. Many of the babies who died were septic. If there was an unusual new colonization, especially driven by poorer hand hygiene, it would increase infections and therefore deaths.
Wouldn't that infection show up in post mortem examinations?
 
Critical Care Hospitals and classrooms are different. Your students are not each severely ill, needing treatments and sudden intervention. If so, you would have to team up and take care of each other's students much as nurses do.

One child was stable and comfortably sleeping, while another child in another room needed a vital procedure. Makes sense for the most experienced nurse to stay and watch the sleeping babies while the other nurse went to help the child in need. JMO
I would think it makes better sense if the "most experienced nurse" (LL) helps in emergency while a designated nurse watches "the sleeping babies" who are in HER care.

JMO
 
No, once the nurse returns to the room, it's her responsibility again. If she was busy making a bottle, she wouldn't have noticed and thought it happened while she was in the room. Less likely for LL to be blamed.
Possibly but with LL's past history she probably still would have been looked at for it. She had already been moved off of night shift because of her long run of 'bad luck.'

If the designated nurse had been back in the room for just seconds, and also believed the monitor was working, then she wouldn't be responsible for a situation which obviously had been going on for many minutes. JMO
 
Yes. They should have pan-cultured the NICU to rule out an infectious cause, but I highly doubt they did. Many of the babies who died were septic. If there was an unusual new colonization, especially driven by poorer hand hygiene, it would increase infections and therefore deaths.
Post-mortems showed what infections were present and babies dying of infection don't improve between collapses, according to the medical expert testimony.
 
I would think it makes better sense if the "most experienced nurse" (LL) helps in emergency while a designated nurse watches "the sleeping babies" who are in HER care.

JMO
A procedure doesn't need to be an emergency situation. It often just needs the 2nd nurse to provide a 2nd set of hands.

If you are leaving the other nurse to watch over a few babies by herself, she should be the most experienced as she will be there alone in case of emergency. JMO
 
I guess we differ in definition of "responsibility in work place".

If I ever left my pupils and accident happend - I would have talks with a prosecutor, all possible educational bodies and guilt burdening me to the end of my life.

JMO
A classroom is not a critical care situation. Different protocols apply.
 
A procedure doesn't need to be an emergency situation. It often just needs the 2nd nurse to provide a 2nd set of hands.

If you are leaving the other nurse to watch over a few babies by herself, she should be the most experienced as she will be there alone in case of emergency. JMO
No.
It causes confusion regarding responsibility.
Nobody knows who is responsible for the baby's collapse.
Total chaos - IMO.
 
A procedure doesn't need to be an emergency situation. It often just needs the 2nd nurse to provide a 2nd set of hands.

If you are leaving the other nurse to watch over a few babies by herself, she should be the most experienced as she will be there alone in case of emergency. JMO
I think more junior staff need to gain experience in intensive care too so that they can progress in their careers.
 
<modsnip - quoted post removed - sub judice>

I am curious as to why the separate allegations of attempted murder on various dates have not been charged in the case of baby I. Perhaps it's not permissible to charge attempted murder and murder against the same victim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of that would be unit protocol, which I don't know. <modsnip - "I heard" is not an approved source>

<modsnip - insider info without being verified>

There weren't any other insulin cases around the same time. But this baby had been on insulin prior, and his twin brother was too, I'm a little fuzzy at the moment on the timeline between when his brother died and when he had his glucose issues.

I'm not sold it was in the TPN ever.

interesting. Do you know if there is any guidelines on the cell by date on tpn? I think according to testimony the reason they had to use the stock bags was due to the pharmacy not being open or due to pressing need of a fresh tpn.

“The day after allegedly murdering child E in August 2015, Lucy Letby allegedly used insulin for the first time to poison a baby, the court heard, in trying to murder child F.

Child F was prescribed a TPN (total parenteral nutrition) bag of fluids and later suffered an unexpected drop in his blood sugar levels and surge in heart rate. Checks on his insulin levels were carried out which showed, “conclusive evidence” someone had given child F insulin to poison him.


Mr Johnson said no other baby on the neo-natal unit was prescribed insulin so child F could not have received the drug intended for some other child by negligence.”


“If it is known in advance that a baby cannot have milk and needs to be fed fluids then the TPN bag is prepared by the Aseptic Pharmacy Unit (APU) at the CoCH on receipt of a prescription.

The pharmacy bag is delivered back to the ward and is bespoke, prepared for an individual patient.

"If, for whatever reason, there is no need for a TPN bag, there are a couple of stock bags...kept in reserve."”

Child F's blood glucose increased, before falling back. A new bespoke TPN was made for Child F, delivered at 4pm.

The prosecution say this could not have been the same one fitted to Child F at noon that day which would have been either a bespoke bag which Lucy Letby co-signed for, or a stock bag from the fridge.

Mr Johnson said Child F's low blood sugar continued in the absence of Lucy Letby.

Child F's blood sample at 5.56pm had a glucose level was very low, and after he was taken off the TPN and replaced with dextrose, his blood glucose levels returned to normal by 7.30pm. He had no further episodes of hypoglycaemia.

"These episodes were sufficiently concerning" that medical staff checked Child F's blood plasma level. The 5.56pm sample recorded a "very high insulin measurement of 4,657".

Child F's hormone level of C-peptide was very low - less than 169.

The combination of the two levels, the prosecution say, means someone must have "been given or taken synthetic insulin" - "the only conclusion".

"That, we say, means that somebody gave Child F synthetic insulin - somebody poisoned him."”


"There should be virtually no insulin detected in the body...rather than that, there is a very high reading of 4,657".

The insulin C-peptide reading should, for natural insulin, should be even higher [than 4,657] in this context, Dr Gibbs explains, but it is "very low"

The ratio of C-peptide/insulin is marked as '0.0', when it should be '5.0-10.0'

Dr Gibbs says the insulin c-peptide reading should be at 20,000-40,000 to correlate with the insulin reading in this test.

The doctor says this insulin result showed Child F had been given a pharmaceutical form of insulin administered, and he "should have never received it".



“Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, asks about the administration of the drugs, and how they are administered.

The nurse says the 10% dextrose would come in 500ml bags, and can be divided up on the unit for infusions, or come available via the pharmacy in 50ml pre-made doses.

The nurse says she does not have an independent recollection of the event.

She confirms if the long line is tissued, it cannot be used again.

Mr Myers says if the long line is changed, then everything else is changed to avoid infection, including the TPN bag. The nurse confirms that would be the case.

Mr Myers: "You wouldn't put up an old [TPN] bag, would you?"

The nurse: "I wouldn't, no. And we wouldn't have put it up as we would have documented that."”


these are the relevant articles with information on child F who had the tpn bag and alleged insulin poisoning. It’s allot of information.

will be really good to have some input though as we are all in agreement that this is the strongest case that someone had deliberately done something. But the thing is the second tpn bag leaves serious questions to any whose minds aren’t already made up.

FYI if you put a qualifier like jmo (just my opinion) after your posts the mods won’t necessarily snip or cut your posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
4,179
Total visitors
4,379

Forum statistics

Threads
591,816
Messages
17,959,540
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top