UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #541
1:02pm

Dr Davis's notes include simple drawings of the lungs and abdomen. The lungs had "good air entry", with the abdomen 'soft' and 'not discoloured'.
Dr Davis says there was "nothing worrying" about Child C's tummy at the time, noting that there would likely be air in the stomach due to him being on CPAP.

 
  • #542
What I also note from the recent link to the other site is that the defence do intend to call their own expert witnesses to refute the allegations of deliberately administered air embolisms.

There seems to be a lot more of what the defence has said in response to the prosecution allegations than is being reported in other places. Are we perhaps seeing some bias creeping into the MSM reporting, I wonder?
Is there any specific places reporting more ? As its best to try and get all sources
 
  • #543
10:44am

There has been a delay to the start of today's trial.

11:23am

The current estimated time for the trial to resume today is 11.30am.

11:33am

The trial is now resuming. The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, apologises for the delayed start, which he said was due to a cancelled Northern Rail train.

11:34am

The first witness to give evidence to day is from a nurse, who cannot be named due to reporting restrictions, who explains she was a shift leader at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit in June 2015.

11:40am

The nurse explains to the court the types of different care that would be provided to babies arriving in the neonatal unit.

11:43am

The nurse is now being asked questions on Child C.
A reminder that none of the children listed in the charges can be identified, so a naming system of 'Baby/Child A' to 'Baby/Child Q' is being used by the press.

11:47am

The nurse said back in 2015, she was not sure she was the one allocating the designated nurses to the babies for that shift, as the allocation system was in the process of changing.
She said she remembers Sophie Ellis was the designated nurse for Child C that evening.
She says Sophie was a "very competent nurse", having come through the neonatal unit as a student nurse.

11:49am

The nurse remembers there being 'no clinical concerns' for Child C at the start of the shift.


11:50am

The nurse says she remembers Melanie Taylor also being assigned to room 1, with Sophie Ellis who was looking after Child C.
Melanie Talylor "would be there for support, for Sophie".

11:54am

The nurse also recalls Lucy Letby was on duty that night, looking after 'at least' one different baby, in room 3.
The nurse said she had 'concerns over respiratory distress' for that baby at the start of that night shift. He was 'grunting', and such symptoms had not been present prior to that.
The nurse asked Lucy Letby to increase the observations for that baby from two-hourly to one-hourly and call the registrar in.

12:00pm

The prosecution asks the nurse about Child C's collapse at 11.15pm.
"I do not remember where, but I was not in nursery room 1."
She recalls "a shout for help", but does not remember who called it.
She entered room 1 and saw Melanie Taylor and Sophie Ellis, and a Neopuff device was being administered.
She noticed Child C was not breathing and the heart rate was very low.
The Neopuff gave Child C chest movement, but he did not breathe himself.
Child C had a "mottled" skin appearance, the nurse recalled.
She remembers a crash call being put out, and recalls Lucy Letby being present, but does not recall when Letby entered the room.
She recalled Sophie Ellis "becoming emotionally upset" and the nurse said she advised her to step outside.

12:02pm

The nurse remembers resuscitation efforts were made, and Child C was baptised, and overseeing palliative care to make the baby boy more comfortable before he died.

12:05pm

The prosecution asks: "Whose responsibility is it to ensure the memory box is made and who takes care of it?"
The nurse: "The designated nurse at the time, if they're able."
The nurse said Melanie Taylor took over as designated nurse and "partly" arranged the memory box.
The nurse explains she asked Lucy Letby to focus back on a baby in nursery room 3, but Letby went into the family room "a few times". The nurse recalled asking Lucy Letby to leave the family to Melanie Taylor.
The nurse tells the court Letby did not have any designated duties to be in the family room, and told her "more than once" not to be in the family room.

12:05pm

Ben Myers KC, for the defence, is now asking the nurse questions.


12:12pm

Mr Myers asks the nurse how busy the unit had been between 2015 and 2016, and from a statement she had made, there were more babies arriving into the unit, and more "intensive unit" babies arriving.

Mr Myers said the number of intensive unit babies arriving seemed more than what Arrowe Park, a tertiary centre, had.

Mr Myers says the nurse, in her 2018 statement, said a ward manager was "fighting" for more nursing staff for the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit. "She still is."

"We sometimes weren't meeting staff guidelines for ratios."

The nurse replies that was the case across the nursing network.

The nurse agrees it was "not an ideal experience for staff."

Mr Myers: "And not an ideal experience for babies? There will be a danger of a knock-on effect."

The nurse replies: "Just because the amount of babies increased does not mean we were not compliant on any shift."

The nurse says she did not say staff were "struggling to cope", after being asked about her statement saying staff were missing breaks during "busy" shifts.


12:17pm

Mr Myers asks about Child C, asking if he was in a "potentially fragile condition". The nurse agrees.
Mr Myers says that due to his size and prematurity, there was a risk he could die. The nurse agrees.

12:21pm

The nurse says she could have changed the staffing allocation for designated nurses for that night shift, had she wanted to.
She says she does not know whether Sophie Ellis had looked after a baby as premature as Child C before, but had confidence in her as Melanie Taylor was there for support.
She says she does not recall if Lucy Letby had asked her to spend some time in that room 1.

12:30pm

Mr Myers asks about Child C's collapse.
The nurse says she was not in room 1 at the time, but saw Sophie Ellis and Melanie Taylor in that room, attempting to assist Child C's breathing with the Neopuff device when she arrived.
The nurse says an initial crash call was put out, followed by one for a consultant.
Mr Myers says the police statement refers to "I think Lucy Letby was in the room by now".
The nurse said she made the statement three years after the incident, and could not recall precisely when Letby had entered.
Mr Myers asks the nurse if she was the one to take an upset Sophie Ellis aside and get her to step down from duty for that time. The nurse agrees.
The nurse said Lucy Letby returned to looking after the other babies "after a number of askings" not to be in the family room, as the nurse and Melanie Taylor were looking after Child C and his parents following the collapse.

12:34pm

Simon Driver, for the prosecution, rises to ask the nurse more questions.
The nurse is asked if, given the busy shift, the quality of care was in any way "diminished" for Child C. The nurse says "no".
The nurse adds she would have allocated Sophie Ellis to look after Child C as the designated nurse, with Melanie Taylor supervising, as she believed her to be competent.
The nurse said she believed another baby on the neonatal unit - the one Lucy Letby was designated to look after that night - should have had more care, including a septic screening, as the nurse believed that child was the most concerning to her that night.


12:38pm

The nurse says, from her police interview, she "believed" Sophie Ellis and Melanie Taylor were in room 1 with the Neopuff device when she arrived.
The court hears the response from police was "ok", followed by the nurse saying: "But I...100 per cent couldn't tell you", which the prosecution say meant she was not 100 per cent sure.

12:49pm

The next witness to give evidence is Dr Katherine Davis, who in June 2015 was a paediatric registrar at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
The court hears she had been working night shifts for the night Child C collapsed, and the previous night.

12:52pm

Dr Davis says she does not recall the previous night shift, but from her nursing notes on the night shift of June 12-13 she recalls the observations for Child C at 9.20pm on June 12, 2015.
The notes include "suspected sepsis" and "jaundice" on a list of ongoing problems. The latter is, the court hears, "very common" in premature babies.

12:54pm

Dr Davis added that, at that point, there had been 'no desaturations' or 'bradys' (bradycardia).
Child C was 'NBM' (nil by mouth) due to "billious aspirates".

"The nurse explains she asked Lucy Letby to focus back on a baby in nursery room 3, but Letby went into the family room "a few times". The nurse recalled asking Lucy Letby to leave the family to Melanie Taylor.
The nurse tells the court Letby did not have any designated duties to be in the family room, and told her "more than once" not to be in the family room."


Another red flag IMO
 
  • #544
Those are interesting and the first one appears to have a lot more detail about the defence opening statement than the others do, unless I missed a lot.

One thing that I find very illuminating is the defence talking about the note; they say that it was her pouring her anguish out on paper due to the things which were being said about her. Also he says;

" She was "going through a grievance procedure" with the NHS at the time, the court hears, and knew what was being said about her before her arrest."

I wasn't aware that she had initiated a grievance procedure. I'm not sure which way it turns my opinion, to be honest. Do we take it as her innocence - I mean, if you're guilty of all this then perhaps your reaction would be to keep your head down and not draw attention to yourself which maybe indicates innocence? Or, if you're guilty, do you go all out and initiate the grievance procedure to make it look like you're innocent?
It certainly makes more sense to me now the “on purpose“ in the seemingly defining sentence, if it was only written at the time of the rumours and not when she was actually accused of murder/already doing it purpose….still don’t know whether it’s to be taken literally as a personal admission of guilt or if she was just giving up on herself in a moment of vulnerability by agreeing to what was being said about her.
 
  • #545
It certainly makes more sense to me now the “on purpose“ in the seemingly defining sentence, if it was only written at the time of the rumours and not when she was actually accused of murder/already doing it purpose….still don’t know whether it’s to be taken literally as a personal admission of guilt or if she was just giving up on herself in a moment of vulnerability by agreeing to what was being said about her.
I'm still trying to figure out whether it points one way or the other. As her defence says, though, if these are written in the context of a grievance procedure then it certainly makes a lot more sense to me. She will obviously know that she's being accused of deliberate harm and perhaps deliberate killing so it would entirely make sense that she might write this stuff down.
 
  • #546
It certainly makes more sense to me now the “on purpose“ in the seemingly defining sentence, if it was only written at the time of the rumours and not when she was actually accused of murder/already doing it purpose….still don’t know whether it’s to be taken literally as a personal admission of guilt or if she was just giving up on herself in a moment of vulnerability by agreeing to what was being said about her.

I’m still convinced that note is just “unwanted thoughts and feelings” and is supposed to be written for its “cathartic” qualities. It very much reads like it, it’s just a written stream of her thinking. What I said upthread is my own interpretation of making sense of it. IMO it doesn’t make sense as a confession but does if it is assumed she is not at least in part speaking truthfully or literally.
 
  • #547
To be honest I think the note will not really play much part in helping the Jury make a decision
 
  • #548
2:02pm

The court has been adjourned for the lunch break, and is expected to resume from 2.05pm.

 
  • #549
2:08pm

Dr Katherine Davis is continuing to give evidence, with prosecutor Philip Astbury asking questions in relation to the collapse of Child C.
She said she would have received a 'crash call' bleep, and was "relatively close" to the unit when it happened.
She remembers "a lot of activity" when she went into room 1.
She remembers there being a senior nurse present, but beyond that, is not sure of who was there.

2:12pm

Dr Davis's note is presented to the court, written at 1.30am on June 14 and timed retrospectively.
The note said she was arrived at the unit in "less than one minute" after the crash bleep went off.
A 'Guedel airway in situ' was noted, with chest compressions in progress.
Dr Davis noted 'occasional intermittent gasps noted'.
Dr Davis said she believed Child C "looked pale" when she arrived.
Dr Davis explains chest compressions would stop "briefly" to detect if Child C had a heart rate, and if there was no heart rate, which Dr Davis said "was unusual" from her experience.

 
  • #550
I'm still trying to figure out whether it points one way or the other. As her defence says, though, if these are written in the context of a grievance procedure then it certainly makes a lot more sense to me. She will obviously know that she's being accused of deliberate harm and perhaps deliberate killing so it would entirely make sense that she might write this stuff down.
Do we know if initially she was suspected/accused of negligence, rather than deliberate harm? I know there would be HR procedures to adhere to, but would she have really been allowed to continue working in the hospital, even on admin duties if they assumed it was deliberate at that point. Sorry if I have missed the clarification of this in earlier discussions.
 
  • #551
2:18pm

Chest compressions were restarted and the on-call consultant was called "urgently".
Dr Davis attempted to intubate Child C, but was unable to do so as Child C's vocal cords were swollen. Dr David tried again with a smaller tube, twice, but was again unable to intubate.
A list of drugs was administered, including several doses of adrenaline.

2:20pm

The next note was at 2am, following a "prolonged attempt" at resuscitation.
Dr Davis: "It became obvious that we were not winning, we hadn't got a heart rate".
The failure to resusciate was "very unusual" as premature babies usually had some response to resuscitation efforts, even if it was temporary, Dr Davis tells the court. Child C had no response.

2:29pm

Dr Davis said baptism of Child C took place, and it was noted during the resuscitation attempts that a capnograph on Child C had detected carbon dioxide coming out of the baby boy. The on-call consultant was called.
The baptism and blessing were completed.
"Unexpectedly," Dr Davis said, Child C was gasping and had a heart rate at this time.
A discussion was had at the "appropriate way forward", and "unfortunately", it was concluded Child C would have had a lack of oxygen to the brain for a "prolonged time" which would have left him with significant damage to the brain and potential other issues, such as kidney damage.
Morphine was administered to Child C for pain relief, following a discussion with Child C's parents, as Child C was "unlikely to survive".

2:31pm

Dr Davis said she was later called by a family member of Child C to be informed they had believed Child C had died, and she explains she would have carried out the necessary observations, and verified the baby boy had passed away.

2:32pm

Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is now asking Dr Davis questions.
He says that Child C "was on the limit" of what the Countess of Chester Hospital could treat, being at 800g birth weight. Dr Davis agrees.

2:34pm

Mr Myers is referring to Dr Davis's notes on June 12, where a "raised CRP" reading is noted, which he says is "a potential marker for infection". Dr Davis agrees.
She also agrees Child C is at increased risk of abdominal problems due to his prematurity.

2:36pm

Mr Myers asks about the billious aspirates.
Dr Davis says any such aspirates, of any colour, are a cause of concern.
Mr Myers: "It's a red flag for a problem, isn't it?"
Dr Davis: "Yes."

 
  • #552
There isn’t anything to suggest that it was anything other than a paper trail that made people suspect LL, no foul play or negligence suspected at all until most if not all other potentials were ruled out.
 
  • #553
To be honest I think the note will not really play much part in helping the Jury make a decision
Let’s hope so, but the prosecution certainly presented the note at the end of their opening as being significant.
 
  • #554
Let’s hope so, but the prosecution certainly presented the note at the end of their opening as being significant.

Yes it made a "fine ending quote" for them.
 
  • #555
2:40pm

Dr Davis said she would have examined the "bigger picture", in that Child C handled well, had a soft abdomen, and there were bowel sounds.
"There was no suggestion we should do anything different."
Dr Davis said there were no other signs of NEC.
Mr Myers said the bile aspirates could be a symptom of something else.
Dr Davis says Child C was examined for other symptoms, but was still "well", and his bowels were not yet open.
Dr Davis adds: "He had a lot of challenges, but he was doing well."
Mr Myers: "He had the potential, as a small baby, to deteriorate rather rapidly?"
Dr Davis: "Yes.

2:44pm

Dr Davis said Child C "was not getting sick" despite the readings of dark bile aspirates.
"It is not something we should ingore, it's something we would keep an eye on...but I don't think there was anything else we should have done."
She adds that dark bile is "not normal", but "not uncommon" in premature babies.
Mr Myers said Child C was not seen by a consultant until three days after he was born, on June 13, and "the appropriate step" would have been for Child C to see him before then.
Dr Davis said such a step would have been discussed prior to June 13.

2:50pm

Mr Myers said the collapse of Child C happened before Dr Davis had a chance to review him. Dr Davis agrees.
Mr Myers refers to the circumstances of Child C's collapse.
He asks if a tertiary unit would have had advanced practitioners capable of intubating a baby.
Dr Davis said they would have had more staff available, but cannot comment on Arrowe Park. She says from her experience in a teritary centre, there would be advanced nursing practitioners, but they would not work night shifts.

2:53pm

Dr Davis said there would be a risk-benefit discussion for whether a baby would be in a level 2 unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, or a level 3 unit such as Arrowe Park.
She said there would be risks in transporting a baby in an ambulance to that tertiary centre.
She adds bed availability would not be an issue as they could always transport out of the region if necessary.

 
  • #556
Do we know if initially she was suspected/accused of negligence, rather than deliberate harm? I know there would be HR procedures to adhere to, but would she have really been allowed to continue working in the hospital, even on admin duties if they assumed it was deliberate at that point. Sorry if I have missed the clarification of this in earlier discussions.
I don't think it's been said, specifically. What the prosecution have said though is that she was moved to day shifts due to there being suspicions that she was harming patients (intentionally or otherwise) on night shift and that the pattern of destruction followed her shift change. I said the other day that I found it very difficult to believe that that was the case, because it essentially amounts to testing a theory by gambling with lives, but another poster provided a link to that very statement so it was definitely said. I still find that absolutely mind-boggling!

As to the reasons for her move to admin duties; I don't see how it's appropriate in any scenario, to be quite honest. If she was incompetent then then she should have been slated for appraisal of her standards and been given additional training if that was needed. If she were suspected of intentional harm then surely she should have been off the premises and the police informed?

We don't know the specific issues she raised the grievances over but not being allowed to do an actual nursing job could well be one. As I say, she would probably argue that other procedures should have been undertaken if they had issues about her safety. Sounds like a good reason for a grievance to me.
 
  • #557
Yes, when talking to your fellow staff. You can be blunt, or use gallows humour, and that would be normal.

Being tactless and blunt with patients and the parents of patients is very different and wouldn't ever be acceptable. Certainly goes against what I've experienced in hospitals both as staff and as a patient. Of course everyone can have a bad day, but it seems like she might have had many more than just one bad day WRT the interactions she is alleged to have had with families.

Yes, agree, but It's more that we can't know with any degree of certainty if she was being deliberately tactless and/or blunt and/or cold/uncaring, or whether her 'briskness' was/is just part of how she personally dealt with grieving parents.
 
  • #558
Yes, agree, but It's more that we can't know with any degree of certainty if she was being deliberately tactless and/or blunt and/or cold/uncaring, or whether her 'briskness' was/is just part of how she personally dealt with grieving parents.
As far as her being "tactless" goes; we've really only heard this a couple of times, I think, and from parents who were under huge mental trauma at the time and were giving statements years after the actual events.
 
  • #559
2:58pm

Dr Davis said at the time she arrived in room 1, the nursing staff were doing everything they could do.
She says that the decision to intubate was not necessarily the right or wrong thing to do, but had its advantages.
The intubation period would have lasted about 30 seconds, as during that time Child C would not have had Neopuff bag support. Dr Davis said after those 30 seconds, efforts to resuscitate using the Neopuff would resume.

3:02pm

Dr Davis said despite the resuscitation attempts, Child C would have had a "huge amount of time" without a heart rate.
Mr Myers: "Did the delay in intubation cause any difficulties down the line?"
Dr Davis: "No."

3:02pm

Dr Davis said despite the resuscitation attempts, Child C would have had a "huge amount of time" without a heart rate.
Mr Myers: "Did the delay in intubation cause any difficulties down the line?"
Dr Davis: "No."


3:04pm

Philip Astbury rises to ask if Dr Davis had seen a collapse that sudden or unexpected in a child like Child C before.
Dr Davis: "Absolutely not."
She adds that from her experience, she had seen a lot of babies with significant abdominal issues, and had dealt with babies with NEC, but they didn't "behave or die in the way that [Child C] did."


3:17pm

We have had a short adjournment while the next witness comes to give evidence.
The next witness is Dr John Gibbs, who in June 2015 was working at the Countess of Chester Hospital as a consultant paediatrician, and had been working at the hospital for over 20 years.

3:26pm

He says he had seen Child C a few times during the first few days of his life, and had carried out a review.
"There was no particular concern" about Child C, despite there being gastric aspirates, and while being "small" even for being premature, he was at risk of conditions such as NEC. He said such aspirates were "not uncommon" as gastric acid could accumulate in the stomach, and Dr Gibbs recommended an antacid be given for the stomach.
He says Dr Ogden's note of the abdomen being "soft, not distended" is a "very reassuring sign".
Dr Gibbs said if the aspirates "got steadily larger" that would be a concerning sign, and a symptom of NEC.
It was decided, Dr Gibbs said, to monitor the aspirates and hold off giving feeds at that time.
He said if the aspirates got larger, or came with vomiting, then an abdominal x-ray would be carried out.

3:32pm

Dr Gibbs said he carried out an ultrsound scan of Child C's head, which was recorded as 'normal', a 3.55pm on June 13.
He was next involved with Child C as the on-call consultant, having received an emergency call at about 11.28pm. A note is written, retrospectively, by Dr Gibbs at 12.30am.
He said then when he arrived, efforts were being made by staff to resuscitate Child C.
He said Child C looked "pale and mottled", which he said was "not uncommon" in babies in cardiac arrest.

3:40pm

The notes show Dr Gibbs intubated Child C to provide more effective ventilation.
He adds that ventilation can also be obtained through the Neopuff device.

3:43pm

Dr Gibbs says that babies experiencing a sudden and unexpected collapse would normally be expected to show some signs of responding to resuscitation efforts, and it was "unusual" Child C did not.

3:52pm

The resuscitation attempts were said to have "failed" after 40 minutes.
Dr Gibbs said it was "standard practice" for attempts to cease after 20 minutes, but staff would carry on for a little longer "in the hope" of the baby responding.
Resuscitation efforts continued after the 40-minute point while the priest arrived to baptise Child C.
He said, "surprisingly", there were some "minimal" signs of life in Child C, and he was "not sure what to do" as it was "unexpected".
He was "not sure" why a feeble heart rate, and breathing gasps, were being recorded for Child C.
He relayed to the parents that, due to the prolonged time without oxygen, the chances of Child C being brought back without "profound" brain damage were "extremely remote".

3:53pm

Dr Gibbs said it was planned to offer Child C palliative care for his final hours.

3:55pm

Dr Gibbs said he could not provide a cause of death, so subsequently contacted the coroner's office.

4:01pm

Dr Gibbs said a debrief was carried out for Child C's fatal collapse on July 2, in which the circumstances were discussed.
It was noted, in a summary of the debrief, Child C 'did not seem unwell', was 'active (kept pulling out NG tubes)', an infection was 'suggested' but Child C was on antibiotics.
Dr Gibbs noted in the debrief the collapse was not related to the feed, which was administered shortly before the collapse, as he said he could not see how the administration of a 0.5ml feed could lead to a cardiac arrest.
The resuciation was performed "technically well", and the "team worked well together".
Dr Gibbs explains the context from the notes, was that the staff had done everything they could to save Child C.

4:04pm

Dr Gibbs said it was not possible to rule out a pulmonary embolus - a blood clot which breaks off from another part in the body, blocking lung circulation.
Another theory was toxins from medicine administered.
The post-mortem had been held at this point, but the results were not available.

 
  • #560
4:08pm

The debrief noted that Child C's parents were advised that "further life support measures" were "futile".
Dr Gibbs said the notes said for future situations, rather than prolonging a baby's life with 'token resuscitation efforts' for a priest/vicar to arrive, it would be better for a nursing member of staff to carry out the baptism duties themselves. This would be in the event of following prolonged, and ultimately failed, resuscitation efforts which left a baby with no realistic prospect of survival.
Dr Gibbs said he would have discussed this with the rest of his consultant colleagues.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
2,547
Total visitors
2,620

Forum statistics

Threads
632,804
Messages
18,631,936
Members
243,297
Latest member
InternalExile
Back
Top