UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

[MsBetsy]

What does the BBM mean? How does a syringe deliver an automatic dose over a period of time? I can see an insulin pump delivering an automatic dose over a period of time, but not a syringe.

Maybe they are referring to a syringe driver. It's a battery operated device that's used for patients who are confined to bed or not mobile. It delivers medication over a period of time. Just a guess, I have no idea if they are used in the Nicu. Imo

 

[catgreen]

To be fair, there are essentially zero hard facts so far. We are less than a week into a potential six month trial and virtually none of the "evidence" has been put to the test.

yes this is my opinion too, we cannot complain about 'lack of evidence' when we haven't even heard the evidence yet

 

[catgreen]

Thank you. So, no chance it was done in the pharmacy.

Another question- and it is important as I am very far from NICU. From my understanding, it is uncommon to use insulin in the NICU.

How high is the chance of it being kept in the NICU and used vs being brought into the unit by someone?

Also, what always bothers me. Were there no cameras in the nursing station or the area where the meds were kept? Were there any cameras in that hospital or NICU?

I don't have any opinion about the case, merely trying to find some objective data.

I think most cameras in hospital settings are set up in car parks, foyers, lifts etc rather than in clinical areas and that is because they are there for the security (of staff and patients) and these places can be dangerous at times. The risks posed by medical staff are very low, cases like this current one are extremely rare, whereas violence towards health staff is reaching crisis levels (Guardian 24 May 22) with 161 medical staff killed globally in the preceding year

 

[Supernovae]

What does the BBM mean? How does a syringe deliver an automatic dose over a period of time? I can see an insulin pump delivering an automatic dose over a period of time, but not a syringe.

Bolded By Me. It's internal Websleuths parlance

 

[merrypason]

Fortunately I stayed diet controlled with no issues with him after birth so I couldn’t really say. I would hazard a guess neonates needing insulin would be on a sliding scale? A bit like women in labour who need insulin. But that is an utter guess I have to say!

I am confused about cctv though. What would be the reason for no cctv in a nicu ?

The RCPCH review talked about the hospital wanting to put CCTV in the unit when concerns started about the deaths. That would have been sometime before June 2016. However the nurses did not want this as they felt it showed a lack of trust in them by management.

We don’t know which nurses did not want it, whether all of them or a sub set.

But in general you wouldn’t have CCTV in areas with patients being treated in them unless there was a very good reason. Patient confidentiality, unions, etc.

 

[catgreen]

The RCPCH review talked about the hospital wanting to put CCTV in the unit when concerns started about the deaths. That would have been sometime before June 2016. However the nurses did not want this as they felt it showed a lack of trust in management.

I do wonder if it was all the nurses who felt this way or just LL.

But in general you wouldn’t have CCTV in areas with patients being treated in them unless there was a very good reason. Patient confidentiality, unions, etc.

would it have been possible to put covert CCTV in to check what was happening? this sounds like this would be a breach of many regulations (needing a court order?) but may have provided concrete evidence - although exactly where you would put it I'm unsure, maybe each cot space

 

[merrypason]

would it have been possible to put covert CCTV in to check what was happening? this sounds like this would be a breach of many regulations (needing a court order?) but may have provided concrete evidence - although exactly where you would put it I'm unsure, maybe each cot space

They wouldn’t be able to put covert CCTV in. The union and patients would be up in arms, legal breaches of data and privacy. And unlikely any evidence they got off it would be admissible as evidence anyway, even if just to dismiss her.

Also would be a huge scandal. Since the NHS is public sector, they do have protocols to follow around patient and employee privacy.

 

[Dcflag]

The RCPCH review talked about the hospital wanting to put CCTV in the unit when concerns started about the deaths. That would have been sometime before June 2016. However the nurses did not want this as they felt it showed a lack of trust in them by management.

We don’t know which nurses did not want it, whether all of them or a sub set.

But in general you wouldn’t have CCTV in areas with patients being treated in them unless there was a very good reason. Patient confidentiality, unions, etc.

I guess that makes sense in that, it’s probably very easy to end up in trouble when it comes to being a healthcare professional. It’s never a black and white situation, sometimes human error does occur etc but these are neonates. Teeny tiny babies, the most vulnerable. Obviously I know security in general with babies in hospitals is tight (when I had my son in QEH in woolwich there was security guards 24/7 on the doors of the wards!) but I can’t help feeling, nicu is a place that would benefit more than most wards with cctv.

 

[gc105]

Link to todays live reporting via Chester Standard:

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, October 17

The trial of Lucy Letby, accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 more at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[gc105]

From the Chester Standard live trial updates:

10:49am

The trial is due to resume at 11am, but there may be a small delay due to technical difficulties with the court videolink system.
The Lucy Letby trial is being heard in quite a small courtroom in Manchester Crown Court, so consequently there are videolink facilities for the press and public, who are watching in separate rooms. For the press, the majority are watching proceedings from the nearby Manchester Magistrates Court (the remainder are at the press bench at the Manchester Crown Court room).

 

[gc105]

11:09am

Lucy Letby is in court as we await the resumption of her trial.


11:18am

The judge, Mr Justice Goss, has now entered court.


11:21am

Members of the jury are now also filing into court, and the trial will resume imminently.


11:24am

The prosecution will now focus on the cases of Childs A and B, having outlined their cases last week.


11:29am

Letby is charged with the murder of Child A on June 8, 2015, and the attempted murder of Child B, between June 8-11, 2015.
Child A, a boy, was born premature in June 2015, the younger of a twin sister (Child B).
A reminder that reporting restrictions mean none of the children can be named in this case, and a naming convention of 'Baby/Child A-Q' is being used by the media.


11:30am

Agreed facts are now being read out to the court. 'Agreed facts' are evidence which is agreed by both the prosecution and the defence - ie, the defence does not challenge them.


11:38am

The first witness statement is dated from 2017 and is from the mother of Child A and B.
She confirms she had been diagnosed, prior to her pregnancy, with a blood disorder, and had been given medication to treat it.
She discovered she was pregnant and it was decided the blood condition would be monitored and managed throughout.
It was planned for the babies to be delivered at a medical centre outside of Chester, at full term.

 

[gc105]

11:41am

The mother was admitted to the Countess of Chester Hospital, and was "very upset", as there had been medical issues diagnosed, and she had been only a week away from moving to the area where the specialist outside of Chester would have delivered the babies.

 

[gc105]

11:45am

The mother had an emergency caesarean section as her blood pressure levels were high, and the twins were delivered.
Afterwards the doctor was "surprised" at how well she was doing, and the mother asked if she could see her children. She was told once she was well enough to sit in a chair, she would be taken to see them.
As time passed, she said: "I was getting a little anxious as I just wanted to see my children".
It was about 12-1pm on June 8 when she went to see Child A and B, who were both in incubators.

 

[gc105]

11:48am

She stayed with the twins for about an hour, and was told to rest on advice of the nursing staff back in her room.
At about 8pm, a male member of staff came into the room.
"You need to come in quickly, there is something wrong with twin 2."
"All I can remember is coming in and seeing what felt like hundreds of people trying to resuscitate [Child A]."
The mum was asked for permission by medical staff to stop resuscitative attempts.
"I couldn't bring myself to say stop.
"The only thing I could bring myself to do was nod my head.
"One of the things that upsets me the most is I never had the chance to hold him in my arms."

 

[gc105]

11:51am

The mum said, following the death of Child A: "I was frantic, anxious and extremely upset."
Afterwards, the mum said she wanted a member of the family to keep an eye on Child B at all times.
After saying goodbyes to Child A, upon her return, she was asked if she wanted to hold Child B, who couldn't be out of the incubator for a prolonged period of time.
"I felt joy and sadness at the same time."

 

[gc105]

11:55am

The couple were woken up by a female member of staff to come quickly to see Child B.
She said: "My heart sank - not my baby, not again."
They were told Child B had suffered a similar situation to Child A, but had stabilised.
Blotches and mottling had been on Child B.
"[The consultant said] she had never seen this before - I remember being surprised by this."
Said consultant had asked to take photos of the blotches, but by the time a camera was arranged, the blotches had disappeared.
The mum did take a photo the following day, noticing the hands and feet were still "a little discoloured".
The photo, dated June 10 in the morning, is presented to the court.

 

[gc105]

11:57am

The mum said she would always go to see Child B at the neonatal unit each day from 9am, until the start of the night shift, and would set an alarm to call the designated parent line every 2 hours during the night.
"I was, and still am, extremely protective of her."
"I couldn't help myself."

 

[gc105]

12:00pm

It was said to the mum from a member of the Countess staff that Child A's death, if 'unascertained' from the coroner, could have come from her blood condition. She was "furious" upon being told this, and sought answers.
That concludes her statement.

 

[JosieJo]

11:55am

The couple were woken up by a female member of staff to come quickly to see Child B.
She said: "My heart sank - not my baby, not again."
They were told Child B had suffered a similar situation to Child A, but had stabilised.
Blotches and mottling had been on Child B.
"[The consultant said] she had never seen this before - I remember being surprised by this."
Said consultant had asked to take photos of the blotches, but by the time a camera was arranged, the blotches had disappeared.
The mum did take a photo the following day, noticing the hands and feet were still "a little discoloured".
The photo, dated June 10 in the morning, is presented to the court.

Interesting to confirm that the Dr's thought the blotches were so unusual that they arranged for medical photography

 

[gc105]

12:06pm

The father of Child A and B has also provided a statement.
He said everything was "fine" with the pregnancy up to the 28-week check-up appointment, when concerns were raised over the mum's medical symptom.
The mum had contacted the specialist doctor based outside of Chester to see if it was possible for the babies to be delivered as planned, but the couple were told it was "too risky".