Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

Absolutely not and honestly, kindly, if you were my relative I’d recommend you take some time away from this discussion as your situation is clearly impacting on your perception.
The alternative to mass murder here is systemic failure and potentially cover up. It is, even without the latest developments, the far more likely reason behind the tragic deaths.
I wish you and your baby well.

It might be worth bearing in mind that Chester applied to the NHS last year for permission to return to level 2 status and start treating very premature and ICU babies again, for the first time since Letby was suspended from the ward.

They have not yet had a response.

We know they have made changes in the meantime, but if Lee's panel is right about these problems and the failure to acknowledge them, it's a good thing that this information has now been shared.

We don't know she killed anyone, the evidence is leaning towards medical and hospital negligence and incompetence which is much more common, no one is calling you a bad mother but doctors and management need to be held accountable for their errors.

😂your dignity was long gone by that point anyway.

Yeah, it’s incredibly shocking to me that this poor baby waited 4 hours for an ABG. I’ve never seen anything like it. Huge, huge failing.

Was that reported, I haven't seen the full details. I wonder what else was missed, we'd have to see all the notes, it must be difficult if you're an hcp to sit as a juror , are you allowed to question the evidence? I wonder if they even did a venous gas, it seems antibiotics weren't started and an incorrect et tube placed in other cases.

It’s discussed in the press conference but I’m not sure if it was discussed at trial.

I think you’re right about the anti-biotic not being started. The cases are running together for me as I’ve had to listen to the PC in many different parts.

Venous blood wouldn't have been useful in this particular case as it doesn’t give insight into oxygenation. It’ll definitely give you some info, but in the case of someone who has been resuscitated, you need to know the oxygenation levels, and so an ABG is essential.

I think someone else mentioned that the parents of this baby are looking into possible medical negligence. No wonder.

I've been reading the Hansard paper, looks like the liver damage and bleeding, air in the stomach allegations ,and others, can be attributed to poor medical care now too and that there has been an ongoing gmc referral and complaints raised about the hospital going back years.

Neonates is entirety different from adult medicine. A compromised infant born in poor condition would have gases taken from the umbilical cord. Acceptable saturations for a baby at ten minutes are 90%. A further gas would be taken from insertion of a cannula or about half an hour after resus while continuing monitoring.

What about the doctor who reported his suspicions and raised concerns about her before the hospital would listen and didn't another ring the police. Would these doctors who were in tears in tv really continually raise concerns as a cover up? Why? Why wouldn't they simply cover up failings in another way if that was the goal. Isn't it a stretch for doctors to frame someone for murder? I'm not saying she is guilty but there is definitely lots of questions on both sides

Would you still expect an abg from the cord be taken in this case, if it wasnt done woild there be a good reason.

Depends on condition of baby at birth if there had been concerns about ctg before delivery. Midwives take the cord bloods from the placenta.

It was the hospital management that contacted police at the consultants' request.

The consultants convinced themselves Letby was guilty. They had received external reports back saying the unit has serious failings. They had received reviews of case notes saying the deaths had natural causes but that failings of care had probably contributed, and that some children would have survived with better care.

They were asked to engage with the process of accepting the findings and developing a safer unit. They refused to accept the findings. They insisted that the deaths must not be natural and that the police must be contacted and asked to investigate Letby specifically, based on their statistical work.

This happened. Letby was found guilty. Now the new panel brings us back full circle. Each death was found to be natural by at least two impartial external experts then, with failings in care. Each death now has two more impartial expert reports, with natural deaths with contributory failings of care.

I am sure the consultants were sincere, and that they were sincerely upset and horrified, but they were wrong to gloss over the failings of their practice and they were wrong when they convinced themselves they couldn't be at fault and it must be Letby.

I hope they will do what Dr Lee recommended: take the new information on board and reflect on the situation. They could do a lot of good by acknowledging they were mistaken.

I wonder if it’s possible to sue for medical negligence when there is already someone spending life in prison for the murder of the child.

So any compromised neonate should have cord gases taken at birth. It’s different to an ABG. So cord gases isn’t looking at oxygenation. It takes a paired venous and arterial sample and is mainly concerned with ph. So is this baby in acidosis. Also looks at lactate. If I wanted to know the oxygenation level of a newborn I’d put an sats probe on their wrist.

An actual ABG might be done later if still concerns about the baby. You couldn’t do a cord sample later on as the cord has stopped pulsing so no blood flow.

I don't think they necessarily considered this child compromised at birth. They got a good AGPAR score. They weren't planning ICU admission. The parents had to really push to be heard. This was the only baby who wasn't premature and I don't know when the hospital realized they had failed to give the mother antibiotics 36 / 60 hours after her waters broke.

They lost the placenta so it wasn't sent to the pathologist when the child died, so the pathologist presumed the child was born with the infection that killed him but couldn't prove it.

Lost the placenta? They mean it was thrown away.

Yes, sorry, that was a bit rushed. The pathologist expected it to have been preserved for testing because of the very high risk of congenital infection.

What was the hospital response to that then, oh don't tell me, understaffed, inexperience, not following procedures, lack of knowledge human error, and so it goes on. Did they find out who disposed of it.

I don't think they ever responded: she just noted it in her report and at the Thirlwall Enquiry.

This whole thing gets more and more eyebrow-raising. I didn’t know the placenta was missing/lost/disposed of. Seems incredibly convenient.

Not having the placenta meant they couldn't prove the infection was acquired in utero, so couldn't prove that the failure to give the mother antibiotics caused it. The pathologist could only say it was very very probably down to that error.

Was this baby born in good condition and then deteriorated and required resus after a short time?
If so, definitely cord gases, placental swab, placenta sent for histology.
Extremely poor practice if none of that happened.

So how many? Is many 200 or 250?

He was unstable from the 12th minute of his life, according to the lead consultant's case summary.

Hospital said he was born in good condition. Parents dispute it.

In one of the nastiest moments of the trial, the prosecution expert claimed that his collapse at 12 minutes was due to his father holding him wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever for that.

I am so sorry but I have to say it. It's sliver. A sliver of doubt. A very thin piece.