Sorry, it didn't show up well:
Dr John Gibbs received test April 14th—and entered it into the file—but he didn’t realise the importance of the test and didn’t yet understand that it meant that the child had been injected with synthetic insulin—it was not his natural body’s reaction shown in that test result
I've transcribed their words in the podcast -
starting at 15.05
"So we need to go back to that blood sample taken from baby L which was sent to the lab in Liverpool to be tested.
It was Dr John Gibbs who gave evidence in court about this blood sample. He said the results of the test were not received until April 14th which is five days after it was sent off. But when they arrived Dr Gibbs said his more junior colleagues entered them into baby L’s notes without realising their significance. Dr Gibbs said they were significant because the results showed it wasn’t baby L’s natural insulin, it was injected insulin that he had in his blood. Baby L had been given insulin he should not have been given, Dr Gibbs said. Dr Gibbs told the court baby L had not been prescribed insulin by anyone and that it would have been totally inappropriate and dangerous to give the drug, which remember is used to lower sugar in the blood, to any patient like baby L who already had very low blood sugar levels.
And like in the case of baby F, back in episode 8, the nurses on duty, that’s nurse Griffith, nurse Williamson and nurse Amy Davies, were all asked on oath whether they could possibly have administered insulin to baby L. No, they all replied."
--
I think it's relevant to copy over the testimony that was reported when this happened with baby F -
10:34am
The first witness is a doctor who has previously given evidence in the trial, but cannot be named due to reporting restrictions.
She says she didn't have any direct treating care role for Child F.
10:38am
The court is shown clinical notes on August 13 from a junior doctor colleague, in which she received genetic test results from Liverpool Women's Hospital.
The test had been conducted to check for signs of Down's Syndrome.
The doctor says Child F did not show any clinical signs of Down's at birth, and the test result showed no signs that was the case either.
The 'hypo screen results' were from a series of blood tests done when a baby has a "persistent" low blood sugar score. Some tests are conducted in the Countess of Chester hospital, some are taken to a laboratory in Liverpool, the court hears.
10:42am
The doctor says the cortisol reading was 'normal', the insulin at a reading of 4,657 was "too high for a baby who has a low blood sugar".
The doctor says it would be expected, with a baby in low blood sugar, for insulin to stop being produced, so that would also be low.
The insulin c-peptide reading of 'less than 169' does not correlate with the insulin reading. The insulin and insulin-cpep readings would be 'proportionate' with each other.
The doctor says it was likely insulin was given as a drug or medicine, rather than being produced by Child F, to account for this insulin reading.
"This is something we found very confusing at the time," the doctor says, and said there weren't any other babies in the unit being prescribed insulin at that time, which would rule out "accidental administration".
10:43am
The doctor says there are "some medical conditions" where a low blood sugar reading would also see a high insulin reading, but the low insulin c-peptide reading meant those conditions would be ruled out.
The insulin reading was "physiologically inappropriate", the court hears.
10:45am
The doctor said those readings would be repeated, but as Child F's blood sugar levels had returned to normal by the time the test results came back several days later, there would be "no way" to repeat the test and expect similar results.
10:46am
The doctor tells the court that Child F had received 'rapid acting insulin' on July 31, but the effect of that insulin would have "long gone" by the time the hypoglycaemia episode was recorded on August 5.
10:47am
The clinical note added 'as now well and sugars stable, for no further [investigations].
"If hypoglycaemia again at any point for repeat screen."
The doctor says if Child F had any further episodes of low blood sugar, then the blood test would be carried out again.
10:50am
The prosecution ask if anything was done with this data.
The doctor says it was looked to see if anyone else at the time was prescribed insulin in the whole neonatal unit, for a possible 'accidental administration', but there were no other babies at that time. No further action was taken.
Cross-Examination
Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, asks to clarify that Child F's blood sugar had stabilised at that time. The doctor agrees.
Judge's Question
The doctor clarifies, on a question from the judge Mr Justice James Goss, that the scope of the 'insulin prescription' checks were made for August 4 and August 5.
LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 24
