Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 8,591
The damage to the liver is interesting. Says it’s multiple locations, would that mean it was more than one blow or impact because that’s what it sounds like?
This alleged "subpar care" is getting really tiring now.My own personal opinion - even "subpar" care should not result in a need for resuscitation let alone death in a situation like this. These were healthy 33 week babies, on minimal respiratory support. Feed them, provide basic respiratory support as needed, basic thermoregulation, mom & dad hold them.... nothing complicated or difficult... just stay out of the way and they should grow.
Absolutely. What are the chances? Especially along with other similar cases, notably Baby M. Once would be a shock, but multiple times? I just don't buy it.My own personal opinion - even "subpar" care should not result in a need for resuscitation let alone death in a situation like this. These were healthy 33 week babies, on minimal respiratory support. Feed them, provide basic respiratory support as needed, basic thermoregulation, mom & dad hold them.... nothing complicated or difficult... just stay out of the way and they should grow.
Thanks - this has been driving me mad!Ah, I see Dan O'Donoghue got the testimony wrong, according to ITV report, which fits with the evidence.
goodness knows about that last sentence in quotes about the parents having all three of them together.
“I can’t remember the reasoning behind it. Sometimes it can be just a gut instinct. Sometimes they (the baby) can present very slight things.
“I remember saying it out loud to Lucy.
“I asked whether she felt we should move him into nursery one. She said ‘no’. She felt it was OK and wanted to keep him in nursery two and wanted to keep the brothers together.
[...]
Ben Myers KC, defending, asked the witness: “Do you recall Miss Letby explained she wanted to keep him (Child O) with his brother?”
“Yes,” Ms Taylor said.
ITV
Said no neonatal nurse ever, IMO. Or ever before, I should say! I wonder what that nurse thought as she typed that? Makes no sense to me.The nurse messages: 'We don't have any luck with 33-34wkrs' 'Never seem b able to tell do u'
Letby: 'No, deteriorate so quick'.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8
What do we make of this evidence?
"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8
This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.
Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
So babies L, M, and N were all 33 or 34 weekers . No other babies who are the subject of the charges which have already taken place were that gestation.Said no neonatal nurse ever, IMO. Or ever before, I should say! I wonder what that nurse thought as she typed that? Makes no sense to me.
Do we have any more information on this conversation?The nurse messages: 'We don't have any luck with 33-34wkrs' 'Never seem b able to tell do u'
Letby: 'No, deteriorate so quick'.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8
What do we make of this evidence?
"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8
This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.
Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
What do we make of this evidence?
"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8
This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.
Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
An IO would be used in adults (intraosseous access) I'm not sure if used in neonatal?