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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #401
1:16pm

Letby replies: "Good."
At 9.17pm, Child F's blood glucose level is recorded as being 4.1.
Letby later adds, at 11.58pm: "Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to bottom of it.
"On way home from salsa feel better now I have been out."
The colleague replies: "Good, glad you feel better. Maybe re endocrine. Maybe just prematurity."
Letby replies: "How are parents?"
Colleague: "OK. Tired. They've just gone to bed."
Letby: "Glad they feel able to leave him."
Colleague: "Yes. they know we'll get them so good they trust us."
Letby: "Yes.
"Hope you have a good night."

Didn't Letby say the same thing almost word for word after Baby E died? After a colleague asked how the parents were she wrote, "Ok. "Tired" and "they've just gone to bed?"
 
  • #402
1:56pm

Letby: "I just feel sad that they are thanking me when they have lost him and for something that any of us would have done. But it's really nice to know that I got it right for them. That's all I want."
The colleague replies: "It has been tough. You've handled it all really well."
"They know everything possible was done and that no-one gave up on [Child E] till it was in his best interest. As a parent you want the best for your child and sometimes that isn't what you'd choose. Doesn't mean that your [sic] not grateful to those that helped your child and you tho 🤬🤬🤬"
Letby: "Thank you xx"

 
  • #403
1:58pm

On November 12, another colleague messages Lucy Letby at 8.32pm, saying: "[Child E and Child F]'s parents brought a gorgeous huge hamper in today. Felt awful as couldn't remember who they were till opened the card. Was very nice to them though n [Child F] looks fab x"
Letby responds: "Oh gosh did they, awe wish I could have seen them. That'll stay with me forever. Lovely family x"

 
  • #404
1:56pm

Letby: "I just feel sad that they are thanking me when they have lost him and for something that any of us would have done. But it's really nice to know that I got it right for them. That's all I want."
The colleague replies: "It has been tough. You've handled it all really well."
"They know everything possible was done and that no-one gave up on [Child E] till it was in his best interest. As a parent you want the best for your child and sometimes that isn't what you'd choose. Doesn't mean that your [sic] not grateful to those that helped your child and you tho *advertiser censored*"
Letby: "Thank you xx"

The *advertiser censored*" is just three kisses at the end of a text nothing salacious by the way
 
  • #405
2:12pm

The trial is now resuming after a lunch break.
The court hears there is being some slight 'rejigging' of witnesses coming into court this week, after the trial heard no evidence on Monday due to juror illness.
That has meant the witnesses are being called into court in a slightly different order than originally planned for the week, due to their respective availability.

 
  • #406
2:16pm

Inteligence analyst Claire Hocknall is now talking through the neonatal review for Child F.
This sort of review has been shown to the court for previous babies in the case.

2:25pm

Philip Astbury, prosecuting, is now calling Dr Gail Beech to give evidence.
She was employed at the Countess of Chester Hospital as a paediatric registrar in summer 2015.
She was present at the birth of Child E and Child F, and looked after the former.
Her first involvement with Child F was during the day shift on August 4.

2:28pm


She says it would have been "usual practice" that she would have been told about the death of Child E as part of her hand-over for that day shift.
A 'ward round-up' is presented to the court, filled in, in preparation for the weekly consultant 'grand round' ward round-up on a Wednesday.
The list of problems, readings and observations for each child is noted, concluding with a management plan.


 
  • #407
2:32pm

Dr Beech explains Child F was born premature, and the note recorded Child E had died aged six days.
Child F was on Optiflow, with 'suspected sepsis' noted, a raised urea and creatinine, 'jaundice' but not on phototherapy at this stage.
Child F was also 'establishing feeds' and awaiting genetics test for Down's, but Child F was not showing any clinical features, and 'hyperglycaemia - resolved'.
Mr Astbury says the genetic test results were received on August 7. Dr Beech said they confirmed there wasn't a presence of Down's.
Dr Beech confirms she was satisfied the hyperglycaemia [high blood sugar] level had been resolved.

2:34pm


Dr Beech said a standard list of medication was prescribed.
The Optiflow reading was not supplemented with oxygen - Child F had been 'in air since 3.30am'.
Oxygen saturation levels were 92-97%, which were 'satisfactory'.

2:37pm

Dr Beech says there 'weren't any concerns' on the cardiovascular system.
Child F weighed 1.296kg [2lb 13oz], from a birth weight of 1.434kg [3lb 2oz]. Dr Beech said this was not a concern as babies, particularly neonates, lose weight in the first days following birth.


 
  • #408
2:39pm

Dr Beech confirms Child F was receiving nutrition via a TPN bag.
Child F was 'active, moving all 4 limbs'.

2:44pm

Child F was 'active and pink', with a 'clear' chest, no increased rate of breathing.
A note saying Child F required further tests on 'mouth and palate', and 'eyes', as part of a 'top to toe examination'.

2:45pm


The management plan says, for Child F, 'wean Optiflow flow when in air.'
'Complete 7 days of antibiotics'
"Continue increasing feeds as tolerated'.
'Chase genetics [for results]'.
'Complete examination and baby check later (parents arrived, upset about twin 1)'.


 
  • #409
2:53pm

Dr Beech is now asked to look at a chart for a prescription for Babiven, which she has dated, but does not recall writing it.
She had signed for a rate of lipid, but that was zero as it wasn't required.
Babiven is a "standard bag" which would be given at a bespoke rate for Child F.
Dr Beech says the second prescription, with different Babiven levels and a new lipid level, was made as Child F had been made 'nil by mouth' and the increased levels were so Child F could acquire the same level of nutrients in his body.

2:57pm

Dr Beech is asked if there was anything notable from previous clinical records that she could recall in respect of Child F. She says there was not.
Her note at 5.40pm on August 5 documented 'asked to prescribe 150ml/kg/day 15% dextrose over 24hr at handover with 5ml/kg/day in it.
"Also to stop TPN, check urinary [sodium]...and insulin."
Dr Beech says she cannot remember if Child F had been prescribed additional dextrose doses.
She says the 15% dextrose - a "high amount" - would normally be due to low blood sugar levels.


 
  • #410
3:01pm

An intensive care chart is shown to the court, showing blood sugar levels which are "all low".
"2.9 [the 5am reading] isn't bad for a neonate - anything less than 2.6 is considered low"
Readings of 1.8 and 1.9 are shown for much of the day, up to 6pm.
10% dextrose solutions are administered at 3pm and 4pm.

3:04pm

A blood test is recorded at 5.56pm, sent to a laboratory, with 'relevant clinical details: preterm neonate, hypoglycaemia, on 10% dextrose'.
The blood glucose levels recorded are 1.3.
The 'lab sample' "tends to be more accurate" than one on a blood gas machine, Dr Beech tells the court.

3:06pm


The cortisol reading is 364, which is within the range of 155 to 607.
The insulin reading is 4,657.
The insulin c-pep reading is less than 169.
Dr Beech says the insulin reading is "very high" - while there is no 'normal upper limit', that reading could be considered high, the court hears.
The insulin c-pep reading is the lowest reading the machine can record.
The two readings [insulin and insulin c-pep] are "expected to be similar," Dr Beech tells the court.


 
  • #411
3:09pm

A urine sample sent at 6.43pm had 'no unusual readings', but Dr Beech tells the court she cannot think, off the top of her head, how to interpret those results recorded.
A chart showing a 7pm prescription of 15% dextrose, with sodium chloride, is administered intraveneously. Dr Beech has signed that.

3:12pm


Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, asks about the review she completed for Child F.
She clarifies she was waiting genetic test results for Child F for the presence of Down's Syndrome. Those results came back on August 7, with no evidence of Down's Syndrome.
Mr Myers asks if a further, microarray genetics test can be conducted to show for further potential genetic disorders. Dr Beech confirms that is the case.

3:14pm


Mr Myers says on August 4, the fluids were being administered via TPN, and milk coming in via the NGT [nasogastric tube], with no lipid required as Child F was getting milk in.

3:17pm

Mr Myers asks about the management plan - 'continue increasing feeds as tolerated'.
He then refers to the two August 4 prescriptions of fluids [the first being crossed out], and if Dr Beech had completed the figures. Dr Beech confirms that was the case, and that she signed for them.
At the first one, there is no component of lipid.
Dr Beech says she would have written these figures after the ward round, so the TPN could be made up.


 
  • #412
3:22pm

Dr Beech says it would take some time from prescribing the TPN bag to it then being administered.
Mr Myers asks for clarity on how the second prescription comes to be made, with a different rate of administration of Babiven and a new lipid and new 10% dextrose doses.
Dr Beech confirms she did not prescribe these additional nutritions, as they are signed by a colleague.
The total nutrition administration is now 165ml and the rate is slightly increased from the first, crossed-out prescription of total 150ml fluid.
Dr Beech says the additional nutrition would come on separate infusions.

3:22pm

That concludes Dr Beech's evidenc


 
  • #413
Not much come back from the Defence with that witness
Imo this case will be a lot more difficult for the defence to throw doubt on.
 
  • #414
Did the Baby F survive?
Did the parents manage to remove him from this place? :oops:
 
Last edited:
  • #415
Did the baby F survive?
Did the parents manage to remove him from this place? :oops:

Yes Baby F lived thank goodness
 
  • #416
Just a quick question if any of you guys know/remember, was LL ever child F's designated nurse? She made a note in Child F's records on August 3rd

"The mum called her husband when she got to the labour ward, in a call lasting four minutes and 25 seconds, at 9.11pm.
Letby made a note in Child F's records (Child F being the twin of Child E), "after she had got rid of" the mum, Mr Johnson said.
The next time the mum visited Child E, he was in terminal decline."

But on August 4th

"On that nght shift, the designated nurse for Child F, in room 2, was not Letby.
Letby had a single baby to look after that night, also in room 2."
 
  • #417
Seems she not his designated nurse but had been at one point (thanks @Noseyjosie )

"Letby was interviewed by police in July 2018 about that night shift.
She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care".

She was asked about the TPN bags chart. She said the TPN was kept in a locked fridge and the insulin was kept in that same fridge.
She confirmed her signature on the TPN form.
She had no recollection of having had involvement with administering the TPN bag contents to Child F, but confirmed giving Child F glucose injections and taken observations.
She also confirmed signing for a lipid syringe at 12.10am, the shift before. The prosecution say she should have had someone to co-sign for it.
"She accepted that the signature tended to suggest she had administered it."
"Interestingly, at the end of this part of the interview she asked whether the police had access to the TPN bag that she had connected," Mr Johnson added.

In a June 2019 police interview, Letby agreed with the idea that insulin would not be administered accidentally.
In November 2020, she was asked why she had searched for the parents of Child E and F. She said she thought it might be to see how Child F was doing.
She was asked asked about texting Child F’s blood sugar levels to an off- duty colleague at 8am. She said she must have looked on his chart."

All from the Media Maps and Timeline thread

So she says she "had not been involved in his care". But made notes in his chart, gave him glucose injections, signed for medications, connected his TPN bag and then looked on his chart to text a colleague about it. If that's not involved I'd love to know what involved looks like,
 
Last edited:
  • #418
Just a quick question if any of you guys know/remember, was LL ever child F's designated nurse? She made a note in Child F's records on August 3rd

"The mum called her husband when she got to the labour ward, in a call lasting four minutes and 25 seconds, at 9.11pm.
Letby made a note in Child F's records (Child F being the twin of Child E), "after she had got rid of" the mum, Mr Johnson said.
The next time the mum visited Child E, he was in terminal decline."

But on August 4th

"On that nght shift, the designated nurse for Child F, in room 2, was not Letby.
Letby had a single baby to look after that night, also in room 2."


Found these in the media thread.....
2 Aug 2015, Sunday

8pm night shift – LL was designated nurse for Child F

Child E Timeline - Part 2 (from start of night shift of 3rd August 2015 to 11.30pm

7.30pm to 8pm night shift – LL is designated nurse for twins E & F in room 1.
I think there was another night shift she was F's designated nurse, maybe 1st Aug?
 
  • #419
But made notes in his chart, gave him glucose injections, signed for medications, connected his TPN bag and then looked on his chart to text a colleague about it. If that's not involved I'd love to know what involved looks like,
But how can a nurse give glucose injections to a baby without consulting with a doctor?
And to not a designated patient into the bargain?

This case is absolutely out of this world o_O

Moo
 
Last edited:
  • #420
Found these in the media thread.....







I think there was another night shift she was F's designated nurse, maybe 1st Aug?
Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
1,891
Total visitors
2,001

Forum statistics

Threads
632,764
Messages
18,631,464
Members
243,290
Latest member
lhudson
Back
Top