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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marantz4250b said:
By "retrospectively" don't they just mean at the end of her shift, though?
Click to expand...
They never actually specify when it was done. But in the opening statements for another child, P her note said.

Letby's nursing notes from that night (9.18pm-10pm) recorded: "Written in retrospect...NG tube on free drainage - trace amount in tube. Abdomen full – loops visible, soft to touch … Reg...arrived to carry out ward round – [Child P] had apnoea, brady, desat with mottled appearance requiring facial oxygen and neopuff for approx. 1 min. Abdomen becoming distended. Decision made to carry out bloods and gas (approx. 09:30)”

So I think they just meant that she had noted it as written in retrospect. Not sure if this is relevant somehow or them just summarising her note. Maybe relevant if all her notes on the cases were done retrospectively, and they are trying to set the scene for why that's unusual if ward wasn't busy/she was doing notes for other cases.
 
merrypason said:
They never actually specify when it was done. But in the opening statements for another child, P her note said.

Letby's nursing notes from that night (9.18pm-10pm) recorded: "Written in retrospect...NG tube on free drainage - trace amount in tube. Abdomen full – loops visible, soft to touch … Reg...arrived to carry out ward round – [Child P] had apnoea, brady, desat with mottled appearance requiring facial oxygen and neopuff for approx. 1 min. Abdomen becoming distended. Decision made to carry out bloods and gas (approx. 09:30)”

So I think they just meant that she had noted it as written in retrospect. Not sure if this is relevant somehow or them just summarising her note. Maybe relevant if all her notes on the cases were done retrospectively, and they are trying to set the scene for why that's unusual if ward wasn't busy/she was doing notes for other cases.
Click to expand...
They said yesterday - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, October 17

"3:39pm

Letby's nursing note is written in retrospect at 7.56am the following day, after Child A had died."


My note - Baby A died at 8:58 PM.
 
Tortoise said:
They said yesterday - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, October 17

"3:39pm

Letby's nursing note is written in retrospect at 7.56am the following day, after Child A had died."


My note - Baby A died at 8:58 PM.
Click to expand...
Which was presumably at the end of her shift as she swiped in at 19:22 and was handed over her patients at 20:00. So the notes were retrospective in them being made a few hours after the event but not way after the shift had ended. This would seem entirely reasonable to me.
 
10:33am

The trial is now resuming, with members of the jury filing into court.

10:37am

The prosecution is continuing its examination of the medical notes evidence, collated into an electronic bundle, for Child A.
Claire Hocknell, intelligence analyst, is talking through the various electonic slides.
The first is a slide showing which nurses were the designated nurses for the children in the neonatal unit on June 8 for the night-shift. Letby was the designated nurse for Child A.

10:52am

The court is shown a series of doctors' clinical notes, written in retrospect on the collapse of Child A before 8.30pm on June 8, and the failed attempts to resuscitate him.
The court hears the doctors, including consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram, will provide further explanations and context for their notes when they are called to give evidence in court later.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
Marantz4250b said:
By "retrospectively" don't they just mean at the end of her shift, though?
Click to expand...
all record keeping about actions/events is by its nature retrospective! To be mentioned specifically it gives the sense it was 'out of the ordinary', I think I heard previously that she had some patient records at home? If correct this is an absolute no-no
 
Marantz4250b said:
Which was presumably at the end of her shift as she swiped in at 19:22 and was handed over her patients at 20:00. So the notes were retrospective in them being made a few hours after the event but not way after the shift had ended. This would seem entirely reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
an almost twelve hour delay seems excessive, unless an argument can be made that continued to be extremely busy all night?
 
catgreen said:
all record keeping about actions/events is by its nature retrospective! To be mentioned specifically it gives the sense it was 'out of the ordinary', I think I heard previously that she had some patient records at home? If correct this is an absolute no-no
Click to expand...
They were handover sheets and it's already been said that although they shouldn't be taken home they often are unintentionally.

The doctors medical notes have also been referred to as being made retrospectively. I'm thinking that they just mean made at a time that wasn't at the time it was happening which, as you say, is the story with any type of note so I don't really see why it's relevant.
 
11:06am

Letby's notes, written in retrospect, record the time of death for Child A, at 8.58pm, that Child A and B were baptised together, and a lock of hair and hand/footprints taken for Child A in accordance with the parents' wishes.

11:09am

Letby searched on Facebook for Child A's mum's name at 9.58am on June 9.
A message to Letby from a colleague, shortly afterwards on June 9, following the death of Child A, began: "Luckily it doesn't happen very often here, not that that's any consolation at all."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
11:13am

A nurse's note on June 9 records that the family of Child A were offered support throughout the day, and declined to receive a memory box for Child A and photographs at that time as they were too upset and bereaved.
The note concludes that the parents were made aware the mementos were there for the family to keep, when they were ready to receive them.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
11:17am

Letby sent a Whatsapp message to a colleague saying she "didn't want to see" Child A's parents.
A colleague responds: "That's understandable."
Letby says: "Don't mind being in [nursery room] 1 but don't want to have [Child B]."
The colleague offers to look after Child B, with Letby also present in the room. Letby agrees and says: "I think it'd be good for you."

11:19am

Letby messages another colleague: "I think we did everthing we could under very difficult circumstances."
She added, in another message: "...I can't look after [Child B] because I just don't know how to feel seeing parents..."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
11:40am

Letby is recorded making another search on Facebook for the mum of Child A and B at 11.31pm on June 10.

11:42am

A further search is made on June 25 at 9.50pm.

11:50am

The court has also been shown a series of messages sent between Letby and nursing colleagues in relation to the death of Child A and the non-fatal collapse of Child B.
On June 30, following the deaths of Child A, C and D, and the non-fatal collapse of Child B, Letby's colleague messaged her there was something 'odd' about that night.
Letby replies: 'What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different cicrumstances?'
Letby's colleague responds: "I don't know, were they that different?"
The collague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
12:03pm

The court had earlier heard messages sent between Letby and colleagues.
Letby said in one message to a colleague, regarding the death of Child A: "Think we all need answers."
She later messaged to say she had been watching 'An Hour to Save Your Life', about a life working in a neonatal unit.
Letby's colleague responded: "...don't really watch thinks like that...get enough in work".
Letby responded: "I just find it interesting, to see how our work is portrayed to the public."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
Tortoise said:
Just noting the dates here -

child A - June 8th
child B - June 8th - June 11th
child C - June 14th
child D - June 22nd
Click to expand...

This is relevant I feel. BBM

On June 30, following the deaths of Child A, C and D, and the non-fatal collapse of Child B, Letby's colleague messaged her there was something 'odd' about that night.

Letby replies: 'What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different cicrumstances?'

Letby's colleague responds: "I don't know, were they that different?"

The collague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

It does feel like everyone from her colleagues to doctors were noticing things felt odd right from the early days, except LL.

Also the fact she told a colleague she didn't want to be near child B, yet did his blood gases and IV feed as soon as she started shift and took his handover note home - despite not being the designated nurse? Very odd.
 
12:07pm

Letby later messaged another colleague, who had been off work after looking after Child A, to say: "Hi [nurse] - you may have heard by now but wanted to let you know that we lost little [Child A] on Monday. Knew you looked after him."
The colleague responded: "I didn't know actually, thanks for letting me know. That's terrible!"
Letby: "It was awful...he died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover. Not sure why. It's gone to the coroner."
The colleague: "Oh god, he was doing really well when I left."

12:08pm

Letby had made a further search on Facebook for the mum of Child A on September 2, 2015.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
12:10pm

In the same conversation between Letby and her colleague, Letby said: "I was not supposed to be in either - [boss] swapped my nights as unit busy - but these things happen unfortunately."
Letby's colleague: "Yeah it's the business we are in unfortunately...hopefully [Child B] will be ok in the end."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 18
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 594 (members: 74, guests: 520)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
520
Total visitors
594
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,145
Messages
18,235,245
Members
234,301
Latest member
jillolantern
Back
Top