Main Page

Baby H

Count 10: Attempted murder of Baby H on 26 September 2015 (Not Guilty)
Count 11: Attempted murder of Baby H on 27 September 2015 (No Verdict)

Dr Shoo Lee's International Panel Summary Conclusions

BABY 8 SUMMARY [Baby H]

Baby 8 was a 34+4/7 week, 2.33 kg birth weight, female infant who was born by emergency caesarean section for maternal diabetes type 1 with labile glycemic control. She had respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) with grunting, subcostal retractions, respiratory and metabolic acidosis, and needed oxygen, but continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support was not provided until 4 hours later. BIPAP was started the next day as the infant did not improve but chest x’ray was not done. The following day, she was intubated and ventilated for desaturation and gasping. She developed a life threatening tension pneumothorax that was not diagnosed for 2½ hours and was not treated for 1½ hours after diagnosis. She deteriorated and a chest tube was inserted to drain the pneumothorax but a lateral chest x’ray was not performed to check its position. Its malposition led to incomplete evacuation and re-accumulation of the tension pneumothorax. During the next 16 hours, there were 4 episodes of severe desaturations. A second chest tube was inserted but it was not done until 2 hours after a check chest x’ray. The infant was ventilated with high pressures (26/5, rate 40/min, Ti 0.45) and continued to deteriorate over the next day with multiple episodes of desaturations. Despite poor blood gases and re-accumulation of the pneumothorax, it was not drained. Ventilation was further increased to pressure 26/5, rate 60/min, FiO2 100%. A third chest tube was inserted but 3 hours after a check chest x’ray showed re-accumulation of the tension pneumothorax. The infant finally improved and was transferred to Arrowe Hospital

CONVICTION

It was alleged that Baby 8’s clinical deteriorations at around 00.55 hr and 03.30 hr on 27/9/15 were the result of deliberate dislodgement of the endotracheal tube.

PANEL OPINION

This is a straight forward case of a relatively large preterm infant with respiratory distress syndrome who developed a tension pneumothorax. The infant had respiratory distress from birth but was not given CPAP until 4 hours later. Without treatment, the infant grunts to exert chest pressure in an effort to keep the small air spaces in the lung open. This can lead to pneumothorax. Tension pneumothorax is life threatening and should be drained immediately. If done promptly and properly, recovery is quick. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

There were repeated and lengthy delays in diagnosis and treatment for the tension pneumothorax, and poor placement of chest tubes with ineffectual removal of air in the chest, resulting in re-accumulation of air in the chest and continuing clinical deterioration. In response, high ventilation pressures were used in an attempt to ventilate the infant but this worsened the situation because excessive pressures compromised venous return to the heart and further impaired circulation and oxygenation.

Baby 8 was subjected to multiple invasive procedures (including at least 6 intubations, 7 chest needles, 3 chest drains, and multiple hand bagging episodes), and prolonged period of illness. There was delay in transferring the infant to a higher level facility. We did not find any evidence to support malicious actions like endotracheal tube dislodgement on 27/9/15.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Baby 8’s deteriorations were due to medical mismanagement of the tension pneumothorax.
2. There was no evidence of intentional tampering with the endotracheal tube.
3. One prosecution expert witness recognized that care of the pneumothorax was sub optimal


Prosecution opening statement

Background

Child H was born in September 2015 and had breathing difficulties shortly after birth.

She was transferred to neonatal unit nursery room 1. Independent experts say there was an "unacceptable delay" in tubating her and administering a protein which helps the lungs, which the prosecution say means the case is complicated by "sub-optimal treatment" at the hospital. Additionally, Child H "was put on a ventilator she was not paralysed; she was also left with butterfly needles in her chest for prolonged periods which may have punctured her lung tissues and contributed to further punctured lungs."

The prosecution say Letby attempted to kill Child H on September 26 at 3.24am, and on September 27 at 12.55am.

Mr Johnson said Child H had previously deteriorated on the night of September 23 and required ventilator support and intubation, followed later by oxygen support. The court hears Child H responded to intervening treatment, but desaturations were "frequent" and "significant". Mr Johnson said all but two events could be explained medically and responded to with routine resuscitative measures. The two events - in the early hours of September 26 and 27, were "uncharacteristic" and required CPR.

Incidents

Letby was on duty for both those night shifts, and was the designated nurse for Child H. That night, Child H was given a blood transfusion.
At 2.15am, medical notes by a doctor showed a re-accumulation of her left-sided pneumothorax. A further chest drain was inserted to relieve the pressure. The ICU chart shows that Letby recorded having given Child H a dose of morphine at 1.25am and a dose of saline at 2.50am. The saline bolus was set to run for 20 minutes and would therefore have ended at 3.10am. Lucy Letby would have had the cover of legitimacy for accessing Child H's lines just before she collapsed again.

At 3.22am, Child H collapsed and required CPR. The attending doctor said the cause was unclear. He concluded the episode was 'hypoxia' (shortage of oxygen). Letby made notes at 4.14am, recording a lowering of the heart rate at 11.30pm which required treatment. She recorded the additional chest drain and a blood transfusion at 2am. Of the collapse at 3.22am, she recorded: "profound desaturation and colour loss to 30%, good chest movement and air entry, colour change on CO2 detector, neopuff commenced in 100% oxygen and help requested. Serous fluid +++ from all 3 drains, became bradycardic. Drs crash called and resus commenced as documented"

At 5.21am, Letby recorded a conversation between herself, the attending doctor, and Child H's parents.

During the following day, Child H was relatively stable. A different nurse was the designated nurse for Child H, still in room 1, on the night of September 26. Letby was also on duty. The designated nurse 'could not recall' if she had taken a break during the shift, but there would have been times she would have gone out of the room to get a drink or retrieve something from a cupboard. Letby was looking after a child in room 2. Child H suffered "two sudden and unexpected episodes of profound desaturation at 12.55am and 3.30am." The registrar responded to the emergency calls and on one occasion, saw Letby administering treatment, and took the history from her, assuming she was the designated nurse. The nurse noted 'pink tinged secretions' around Child H's mouth.

The prosecution say this was a similar finding to that found on three other babies in the case so far.

The nurse noted a 'profound desaturation' - a "profound drop in Child H's blood", despite air going into the lungs and carbon dioxide coming out. Both collapses at 12.55am and 3.30am had "no known cause". Child H was transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital at 5.25am, and was stabilised en route in the ambulance. Her mother, who was with her spoke of a "dramatic improvement" as soon as Child H got to the hospital. Child H returned to the Countess of Chester Hospital and the rest of her time was uneventful before being discharged. The court hears she had not suffered any permanent consequences.

Medical experts

The prosecution says medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said there was "no obvious explanation" for Child H's deterioration in those two early-morning collapses. Dr Sandie Bohin "expressed concern" at those events, and the collapses "were more significant than the others, for which there are obvious clear medical explanations". She was also "critical of the way the chest drains were inserted and managed".

Police interviews

Letby was interviewed in 2018 by police. She confirmed she had remembered Child H because she had chest drains - which the court hears are a fairly rare thing these days. For the second incident, Letby said she had not been the designated nurse so assumed she had not been caring for Child H. She identified her signatures on two medicine administrations.
In 2019, she identified her signature on more documents. In this interview, she told police she had not been the designated nurse but had been giving her treatment at the time Child H collapsed.

Facebook

On October 5, 2015, the prosecution say Letby searched for the mum of Child H, the father of Children E and F, and the mother of Child I. It was her day off.

Mr Johnson said: "We say this has to be looked in the context of everything else.
"We say it is more than an innocent coincidence that once Child H was moved out of the Countess of Chester Hospital she had no further problems."

Defence opening statement

For Child H, the defence say she was treated with three chest drains and her case, as said by the prosecution, was complicated by "sub-optimal treatment".

Butterfly needles were left in for hours "which may have punctured her lung".

The prosecution experts "appear to have no explanation" for what happened.

The harm "was nothing to do with Lucy Letby" and a cause of Child H's deterioration included "infection".

Defence closing speech - Child H

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child H. He describes the events for Child H, including the insertion of chest drains. He says the evidence reveals "serial, sub-optimal care" and "no evidence" of Letby "doing any wrongdoing at all", but "she gets the blame". Mr Myers says late provision of surfactant would have made the pneumothorax worse for Child H, as Dr Bohin said. He says Dr Bohin also wrote in her report there was an "unacceptable delay" in intubating, and leaving a butterfly needle in the chest was 'sub-optimal practice as it is hazardous'.

He adds there was a delay in inserting the second chest drain, and Child H had not been sedated. He says the issue of the 'moving second chest drain' is "hotly contested". Highlighting the 'sub-optimal care', Mr Myers says there is "a very good reason" why babies got better when transported to a tertiary centre, and it 'wasn't because of Lucy Letby'.

The trial is now resuming following its lunch break.

Mr Myers says it occurs to him they are halfway through the material, and appreciates it is very detailed. He says it is important and necessary to go through the detail. He continues with the case of Child H. He says the defence suggests a 'build-up' of what had gone on, and a poorly positioned chest drain, caused the collapse at 3.15am, after a third chest drain was put in. He said it must have been "a huge stress on a baby".

Mr Myers says the second chest drain "may be another aspect of poor care". He says it was put in the 'wrong position' for Child H by Dr Jayaram. Two x-rays are shown. He says Dr Bohin accepted, in cross-examination, that the position of the chest drain was not in accordance with guidelines. She said the position of the tip was sub-optimal. Mr Myers says the tip also moved around. A number of x-ray images for Child H are shown for the positions of the chest drain tip. He says it is shown to have moved, and says the tips of the other ones had not.

Professor Owen Arthurs was asked, Mr Myers said, about the position of the tip of the needle [from a radiograph image for Child H on September 26, 2015], and whether it was touching the heart. He replied he could not tell - it could be several centimetres away, it could be touching. A doctor wrote for Child H on September 26: 'Possible cause for cardiac arrest could be that a drain is too close to heart and touching pericardium...' A nursing note: 'At 16.21 [Child H] started to desaturate, no air entry heard, ET Tube suctioned and help summoned from colleague. Crash call... 'Second chest drain noted to be in a different position and 'holes' close to chest wall. Further tegerderm applied and chest drain tubing position altered. Both chest drains bubbling ++ during reintubation...' Mr Myers says the chest drain was "not well secured and this can't be blamed" on Letby. He says a desaturation to 56% at 7pm 'should be included in the list of events, but this wouldn't fit as Letby isn't on it'.

Mr Myers says the key event for Child H happens at 3.20am, hours after the parents left before midnight. He refers to the second event, the following night, in which he says Letby has "no opportunity to be involved in this". He says Child H had a 'profound desat' at 2030 and a further 45% desaturation at 2145. He says the 'profound desaturation to 40%' at 0055 is the one Letby is blamed for, "randomly". There is also a desaturation at 0330, which Letby is not linked with. Mr Myers says the desaturation at 12.55am is part of a series Child H had been going through that night. Mr Myers said no cause was identified for the collapse of Child H. He says there were "very serious failings in care".


Agreed Facts

Recorded Events and Messages/Facebook Searches

Intelligence analyst Kate Tyndall has been recalled to court to talk the court through the sequence of events for Child H, presented as an electronic bundle of evidence. As before, the sequence of events features medical charts, nursing/doctors' notes, significant events, plus timestamped evidence of messages recovered from Lucy Letby's phone.

22nd September 2015

6.40pm: The events show Child H was admitted to the neonatal unit at 6.40pm on September 22, 2015, shortly after being born.

23rd September 2015

Letby sends a message to a nursing colleague on September 23 informing her she's rearranging her shifts, and will be working with her. She also informs her mother she's working that night as an extra shift. She also messages another colleague to say how busy the unit is likely to be that night.

24th September 2015

The following day, Letby messages a colleague to say the "It's completely unsafe", followed by a frowning emoji. She messages a friend that work is "extra mad" so she wouldn't be able to do hula hoop [exercise]. She messages a colleague on the number of babies in the unit, in reference to how busy it was on that shift, and how she had not had chance to 'catch up on Corrie' [Coronation Street].

Letby is then recorded as being the designated nurse for Child H for the night of September 24-25.

25th September 2015

Dr Alison Ventress records clinical notes of a lung issue for Child H that night.
X-rays at 1.40am and 2.29am on September 25 were taken. Child H was diagnosed with a punctured left lung. Dr Ravi Jayaram records a desaturation for Child H and a test was carried out for a collapsed lung.

3.07am: Letby sent a text to a colleague at 3.07am on September 25: "Can I go now??" The colleague responds a few minutes later: "Yes. Let's run off together and rescue [colleague] too."

5am: Letby's medical note for the morning of September 25 recorded the "profound desaturation" at 5am, with the fings on the right hand noted to be white, along with a white patch on the abdomen.

The intelligence analyst continues to talk through the sequence of events, with descriptions of the care being given to Child H throughout the day on September 25, 2015, which includes another desaturation in the afternoon.

4.23pm: The cardiac arrest team is beeped at 4.23pm to attend the neonatal unit.

The sequence goes to the night shift of September 25-26, in which Lucy Letby is listed as a designated nurse in nursery room 1 for Child H. No other babies are in nursery room 1, with four babies (including Child G) in room 2, four in room 3 and four in room 4.

11.05pm: A blood transfusion for Child H is begun at 11.05pm.

11.30pm: A desaturation for Child H is recorded at 11.30pm, with Letby writing the note up retrospectively at 4.14am the following day. Observations are being taken more regularly due to the blood transfusion, the court hears.

26th September 2015

A corrected slide from the sequence of events is now shown to the court, showing that for the September 26-27 night shift, Shelley Tomlins was the designated nurse for Child H in room 1 - the only baby in that room that night. Lucy Letby was a designated nurse for two babies in room 2, with another nurse, Christopher Booth, looking after Child G in room 2. Four babies, including Child I, were being looked after in room 3, and four babies were being looked after in room 4.

1.30am: A morphine bolus is administered to Child H at 1.30am on September 26, and the blood transfusion is recorded by Letby as being completed at 2am. However, a separate, handwritten paper record shows the blood transfusion having been completed at 3.05am. This separate record is not signed by anyone.

2.05am: Letby records 'poor blood gas and 100% oxygen requirement' and a third chest drain was inserted around this time, the court hears. Dr John Gibbs records this as being about 2.15am, as the chest x-ray showed a re-accumulation of Child H's left-sided pneumothorax (ie a collapsed lung). A further, third chest drain was inserted to relieve the pressure.

At 3.22am, Child H suffered a 'profound desaturation and colour loss to 30%'. Letby records: 'Good chest movement and air entry, colour change on CO2 detector. Neopuff commenced in 100% oxygen and help requested.' An intensive care chart for Child H on September 26 records 'blood complete 0324 - RESUS'. The record is initialled by Lucy Letby.

3.24am: Dr Alison Ventress confirms in a clinical record she was crash called at 3.24am as Child H "had desat requiring bagging...Sats 60s then heart rate down to less than 100 so nurses crash called, wasn't being handled at all, no trigger identified.' Upon her arrival, Child H was 'being bagged via ETT, good chest movement, capnograph positive, sats 60%, heart rate 70 down to 50'. A test for a collapsed lung was carried out and air was removed.

3.30am: Dr John Gibbs, consultant paediatrician, records he was called from home at 3.30am and arrived at the neonatal unit at 3.36am. He saw 'CPR in progress', and Child H had no pulse when chest compressions stopped. The sequence of events details the series of medications administered to Child H.

3.46am: Lucy Letby's note records, for 3.46am, 'x3 doses adrenaline and x1 dose atropine given...chest compressions stopped at 0346, heart rate 180, saturations >90, placed back on to a ventilator, 30% oxygen'.

Letby recorded, for the Child H event at 3.22am, 'profound desaturation and colour loss to 30%, good chest movement and air entry, colour change on CO2 detector, Neopuff commenced in 100% oxygen and help requested. Serous fluid +++ from all 3 drains, became bradycardic. Drs crash called and resus commenced as documented'.

4.28am: Letby records a Child H family communication at 4.28am: 'Parents visiting at start of shift. Updated on condition and advised to try and rest overnight. Midwife contacted during resus to [help take mum to the unit].' A follow-up note said parents were concerned about the possibility of brain damage, and Child H remained poorly and could relapse. Dr John Gibbs offered a blessing to be administered and the parents accepted the offer. Child H was then blessed with parents and family members present.

7am: Letby recorded 'good blood gas at 0700 - ventilation reduced to 22/4, and rate reduced...in 26% oxygen. [Child H] appears settled.'

9am: A series of messages recovered from Letby's phone, of messages sent to and from her phone at around 9am on September 26, are shown to the court.

They include Letby's colleague Yvonne Griffiths commending Letby for "all your hard work these last few nights". She says Letby "composed" herself "very well during a stressful situation" and it was "nice to see" her "confidence grow" as she advanced throughout her career. Letby shows this message to a colleague and asks her how she should reply. Her colleague expresses surprise. A series of messages are exchanged between Letby and the colleague acknowledging there had previously been "bitchiness" among staff and there had been "comments" about Letby regarding her role which Letby had found "upsetting".

Medical notes record Child H's parents were present as treatment continued for the baby girl, with further medication administered during the day of September 26.

At this point, Child H was the only baby in room one of the neonatal unit, and for this night shift (September 26-27), Letby was the designated nurse for two babies in room two.

8.49pmThere is a further, profound desaturation for Child H, with a crash call made at 8.49pm. Dr Matthew Neame recorded attending to the neonatal unit.

9.31pm: Letby, on shift, messages a colleague at 9.31pm to give an update on Child H's progress throughout the day. She messages colleague Alison Ventress a couple of moments later to say Child H 'had a stable day', and took out the original drain at 8pm, adding 'just blocked tube, lots of secretions!'.

Letby messages her colleague, for Child H, 'I've been helping Shelley [Tomlins, designated nurse for Child H that night] so least still involved but haven't got the responsibility'. Colleague Alison Ventress messaged Letby: "Never known a baby block tubes so often!! Glad she's had a stable day..."

11pm: Letby messages a colleague just before 11pm, lamenting that she had forgotten to record Strictly that night, and BBC iPlayer doesn't work on her iPad.

27th September 2015

12.45am: Letby then is recorded as being on Facebook at 12.45am and 12.46am, liking a post and photo.

12.55am: Child H then has a 'profound desaturation' timed at 12.55am. Nurse Shelley Tomlins recorded: 'profound desaturation to 40% despite equal bilateral entry and positive capnography'. Staff were crash called to the neonatal unit room 1.

1.07am: Dr Matthew Neame reintubated Child H and chest compressions were started at 1.07am. Child H's heart rate dropped to 40bpm. Adrenaline was administered.

1.13am: Chest compressions were discontinued at 1.13am. A request was made to transfer Child H to Arrowe Park Hospital. "No explanation" could be found for why Child H had had such a profound desaturation, the court hears.

3.30am: Child H had a further desaturation at 3.30am, and medication was administered.

4.10am: The transport team arrived at 4.10am and Child H was handed to the transport incubator at 4.45am and the handover was completed at 5.20am.

6.10am: Child H was cared for at Arrowe Park Hospital between 6.10am on September 27 to 11.30am on September 30.

30th September 2015

12.15pm: Child H returned to the Countess at 12.15pm on September 30 and was discharged at 5.05pm on October 9, 2015.

Further messages found on Letby's phone from that morning are relayed to the court. Letby informed two colleagues what had happened to Child H that night. Colleague Alison Ventress replied: "Think of all the babies you have saved and have gone home happily."

5th October 2015

On October 5, 2015, Letby searched on Facebook for the mother of Child H, as well as two other parents involved in the case, in the space of three minutes at 1.15am.

Intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell has been recalled to talk the court through the neonatal review schedule for Child H.


Lucy Letby in the Witness Box

Direct Examination

Lucy Letby gave this evidence on 15th May 2023.

The case now moves to Child H, a baby girl born on September 22, 2015, weighing 2.33kg. The court hears Child H did not receive surfactant [a protein which helps the lungs] until 41 hours after her birth. Child H required three chest drains, and had a number of desaturations in her first few days. At 3.22am on September 26, Child H had a profound desaturation to 30%. The following morning, Child H had another desaturation to the 40s at 12.55am on September 27. Letby tells the court she remembers Child H and her care needs, but not specific details without referring to the notes. She says for September 2015, the unit "was busy at that time".

A message from Letby on September 24 referred to 'staffing levels on the unit' as being "completely unsafe", the court is told. In a message to another colleague, Sophie Ellis, Letby says: 'Oh Soph it was pretty bad - 18 babies, intubating on handover & a baby with a sugar of 0.1!' Letby tells the court the capacity was 16 on the unit.
Mr Myers: "Had the unit always been this busy?" "No." - Letby said it had been getting increasingly busier. She adds she had never seen a baby with chest drains at the Countess until Child H. She adds she had never seen a baby with three chest drains, even at a tertiary centre. "The most I had seen was two." Letby said during this time, doctors had to 'look things up' and discussions were held on how to manage the chest drains. She says from her experience, chest drains were sutured into the skin, so they didn't move. "Very few" chest drains were kept on the unit. Arrowe Park couriered out some drains, Letby tells the court.

A nursing handover sheet for September 23, 2015, recovered from Letby's home in the 'Morrisons bag', is shown to the court. Letby is asked why she had that sheet, and four others with Child H on it. "It has just come back with me inadvertently and was left at home. "They have not been taken out of my pocket at the end of the shift and I have taken them home."
Mr Myers: "Did you mean to take them home?"
Letby: "No." Letby adds she did not know she had that many handover sheets at her house. "I did not keep track of them."

The nursing notes by Letby for September 25-26 are shown to the court. They include: '...x2 chest drains in situ at start of shift - intermittently swinging. Serous fluid++ accumulating. 2330 bradycardia and desaturation requiring Neopuff in 100% to recover. 10ml air aspirated from chest drain...following poor blood gas and 100% oxygen requirement consultant Gibbs attended the unit and inserted a third chest drain. All 3 drains swinging... [Child H] desaturating++ on handling - minimal handling observed when possible. At 0322 profound desaturation and colour loss to 30%, good chest movement and air entry, colour change on CO2 detector...Neopuff commenced...Serous fluid++ from all 3 drains. Became bradycardic. Drs crash called and resus commenced...'

Letby is asked about the chest drains 'swinging' - she says that shows they are working, with fluid moving back and forth the drain as needed. Serous fluid is naturally occurring fluid in the body. For September 25-26, Child H was the only baby in room 1, and Letby was the designated nurse that night. She required two nurses on a high level of care, and Letby had a colleague to assist her with drugs for Child H and maintenance of the chest drains.

Letby refers to a note 'at 0200 blood transfusion completed', saying the timing of that is an error, and should be 3am. A blood transfusion chart shows the transfusion had started at 3pm on September 25, and ended at 3.05am on September 26. The note is co-signed by Letby. A separate chart, with Letby's handwriting, shows 'chest drain 0210' and a bolus at 0250. The 'blood complete' is sometime after 3am, prior to 3.24am, Letby tells the court. Letby says the '2am' note error she made was nothing "sinister", and 'just a mistake', and other accessible notes showed the timing the blood transfusion for Child H stopped at 3am.

A message from Yvonne Griffiths, part of the management team, to Letby is shown to the court, in which she commends Letby for her hard work over the previous shifts. The message is on September 26. She adds: 'You composed yourself very well during a stressful situation' and it was good to see her confidence grow. Letby relayed that message to a colleague. Letby said this message exchange had followed a disagreement over baptism for Child H. Yvonne Griffiths had felt it was 'not appropriate for that time of night' as Child H had stabilised at that point and the shift was busy. Further messages between Letby and her colleague are exchanged. Letby says, for context, she was 'choosing not to have [Child H] due to lack of appropriate support' as she wanted extra staff to assist her in the care of Child H, as Child H had several chest drains for which she had not been familiar with.

Letby's response to Yvonne Griffiths: 'Thank you. That's really nice to hear as I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which I have found quite upsetting. Our job is a pleasure to do & just hope I do the best for the babies & their family.' Letby tells the court there had been frustration about comments made by colleagues that Letby and another nurse were being allocated room 1 shifts on the rotas, and there was frustration about the unit being 'busy'. Letby agrees the court the frustration was 'particularly prominent at this time' and did not go beyond this period in September 2015.

The trial is now resuming following its lunch break. Benjamin Myers KC is continuing to ask Lucy Letby questions in relation to Child H. The second event is being discussed. For the night of September 26-27, Lucy Letby was the designated nurse for two babies in room 2. Nurse Christopher Booth was the designated nurse for Child G in room 2, and Nurse Shelley Tomlins was the designated nurse for Child H in room 1. The court is shown nurse Tomlin's notes for that shift, which include: '...around 2030 [Child H] had profound desat and brady, air entry no longer heard and capnography negative therefore ETT removed and Drs crash bleeped. New ETT sited...on second attempt...' This event is something, the court hears, Letby is not being blamed for. 2145 - Desaturation to 40% despite good air entry and positive capnography. ETT suctioned quickly with thick blood-stained secretions noted. [Child H] recovered quickly after...'This was also not an event Letby was blamed for, Mr Myers tells the court.

0055 - profound desaturation to 40% despite equal bilateral air entry and positive capnography. ET suction yielded nil secretions. [Child H] then went bradycardic at 0107 to 40bpm and required chest compressions and adrenaline at 0108. Saline bolus given at 0112...' Letby is asked if she had any involvement with this event.
Letby: "No."

0330 - profound desaturation to 60s, again requiring Neopuffing with no known cause for desat....copious amounts of secretions yielded orally, pink tinged. Small amount of ET secretions gained, again pink tinged. Heart rate mainly normal during desat. Recovered slowly.' Letby is asked if she had any awareness of any of the events, including at 0055, the event Letby is being blamed for by the prosecution.
Letby: "No."

A neonatal review chart is shown to the court, showing nurses' responsibilities and duties throughout the night of September 26-27. Lucy Letby confirms from the chart she was involved in the administration of medicine and a 'sodium chloride flush', with Shelley Tomlins, on Child H at 10.12pm. This was recorded on the computer the following minute at 10.13pm. The 'flush' was a normal procedure following the administration of such medicine, the court hears. The next recorded involvement Letby has with Child H is at 10.38pm. Letby tells the court that was for a morphine infusion. That was recorded on the computer at 10.39pm. The next recorded involvement on the neonatal chart for Letby is at midnight, when Letby is making an observation for a different baby. Letby says she was not near Child H at this time. Letby confirms to Mr Myers the next involvement with Child H on the chart is from 3.41am, with the administration of prescriptions. She does not recall what those would have been for.

Cross-Examination

Lucy Letby gave this evidence on 24th & 25th May 2023.

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child H. Letby says she does recall Child H, due to the chest drains that were put in place. Letby said chest drains had to be couriered from Arrowe Park Hospital, as it was "unacceptable" they didn't have sufficient supplies at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Mr Johnson asks if Letby filled in a Datix form for that. Letby says she does not recall. Letby is asked about the text message she sent to Yvonne Griffiths on September 26, 2015, which said: "Thank you. That's really nice to hear as I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which I have found quite upsetting. Our job is a pleasure to do & just hope I do the best for the babies & their family." The court hears this was with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins being allocated shifts in room 1, over other nurses who needed the experience. Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H. Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.

Letby, in her defence statement, questioned how familiar the doctors were with chest drains. Letby, when questioned on this, says this would be non-consultants. In her defence statement, Letby said she could not recall the specific details of Child H's collapses.

Letby is asked to refer to her defence statement, in which she said her memory for both nights when Child H's collapses "merged into one". Letby added she was also looking after a severely disabled baby. Letby now accepts the disabled baby was born later in the shift. Letby tells the court staffing levels were not a contributory factor in Child H's collapses. Letby said she would "question whether the [chest] drains were securely put in" for Child H, as a potential contributory factor in Child H's collapses.

Letby accepts Child H was born in a good condition, and that she recovered quickly. She tells the court she cannot comment on her interpretation of the security of the chest drains, from her observations.

Nicholas Johnson KC is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby on Child H. Letby is asked if staffing issues contributed to Child H's collapse. She says "no", but believes the "management of the chest drains" was a contributory factor.
LL: "I believe it has been accepted throughout the trial that there were issues with the chest drains". Letby said the location of the chest drains on Child H may have been a factor, and that Child H's pneumothoraces were not treated correctly, due to a lack of experience and "nobody seemed particularly confident" on managing the number of chest drains - she says that was down to "multiple" doctors. Asked who those would be, Letby said that would include Dr [Ravi] Jayaram, Dr [David] Harkness, Dr [John] Gibbs and "Dr [Alison] Ventress, even".

Letby says she had dealt with chest drains in Liverpool, but not at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She says she did not have much experience, and had a nursing colleague to assist her in the care of Child H. Letby is asked about the time between 8pm and 2am on September 25-26. She says she cannot recall, specifically, the assistance she had from a nursing colleague that night, but she was there 'on and off', and "gave me a lot of verbal advice that night" in the management of Child H's chest drains, and on baptism after the collapse of Child H. Mr Johnson reads from Child H's father's statement. He refers to being at the unit until "about midnight", and was woken up from home "in the early hours". Letby's nursing note is shown to the court. It includes: '...x2 chest drains in situ at start of shift - intermittently swinging. Serous fluid++ accumulating. 2330 Bradycardia and desaturation requiring Neopuff in 100% to recover. 10ml air aspirated from chest drain by Reg Ventress...inserted a 3rd chest drain...' Mr Johnson says Letby misrepresented the time of this event. Letby tells the court she would have got that time from her notes written at the time. An intensive care chart is shown to the court. It includes, for 2200 - '2210 desat...SHO present...serous fluid++ x2 drain' Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this. Another note 'Brady desat 2330 10ml aspirated from...drain...' Other details are '+clear [in the OP row]' and '+small blood stained [in the Suction ET row]'. Mr Johnson says this is another child producing blood in Letby's care. Letby says this blood has likely come from the ET Tube in the lungs. She denies moving it around to destabilise Child H.

Letby accepts that a 52% desaturation is a potentially serious event. She says: "I don't agree" to the suggestion she has "cooked the books" in the nursing notes. She denies falsifying notes for Child H by giving the impression Child H was deteriorating prior to the collapse. Letby is asked why the '52% desaturation' is not in her nursing note. "Not every single thing gets written down...that is an error on my part." Letby says the SHO was present for that earlier desaturation. Letby denies writing in the intensive care chart after Child H's collapse.
NJ: "You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?"
LL: "No."

Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present. Letby denies lying. Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...' Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress. Letby says she did not know if she told her this information, she may have been present in the room.

Dr Ventress adds: 'Further episodes no change in HR recovered with bagging...[oxygen requirement down] to 30% between episodes'. Letby denies "trying it on" or "falsely creating the impression to Dr Ventress that [Child H] had been having problems for a couple of hours."
LL: "No, I don't agree that it was false." Mr Johnson says the notes (on the observation chart and Letby's nursing notes) don't match. Letby agrees it's an "innocent coincidence" (as said by Mr Johnson).

An observation chart for Child H is shown for September 25-26. Letby is asked if the results show any concern up to midnight.
Letby: "This [the observations taken] reflects that specific moment in time" and says that chart shows no concerns, with all readings in the normal range. Dr Ventress added in her 11.50pm note: '2nd chest drain advanced back in to 4cm as was almost out. Done prior to chest x-ray'. Mr Johnson says this was Dr Ravi Jayaram's x-ray. Letby is asked why she had not noticed that. Letby says medical staff put drains in and managing them was not part of her nursing role. She accepts she knew chest drains were more secure when stitched in rather than taped in. She says she was checking the chest drains. She denies removing the chest drain to cause a desaturation just after Child H's father left.

Mr Johnson asks about Letby's error, as mentioned in her evidence, about the timing of the blood transfusion being completed. Letby said on May 15 the '0200 blood transfusion completed' should be 3am. Letby says she has "miswritten" it from looking at the charts. A blood infusion therapy chart is shown, in Letby's writing, which has in the time ended column what appears to be '0205' corrected to '0305'.
NJ: "The same mistake in two different places?" Letby says she "couldn't say with clarity" adjusting the time after she had written her nursing notes.
NJ: "What happened after 0305?"
LL: "I don't recall."
NJ: "Really?...[Child H] had a cardiac arrest." Letby is asked "how on earth" she made the 0205 error.
LL: "Because we're human people, we make mistakes." Letby says the error is "mine" on the nursing notes, but the timings were otherwise accurate. Letby says she cannot remember Child H's father being present. The father recalled "mottling running out of her skin towards her fingers". Letby says she agrees there was mottling on Child H's skin, but not that it was moving.

A blood gas chart for September 26 is shown to the court for Child H. Letby agrees the reading at 6.44am is a "good" blood gas reading. Mr Johnson says Child H had had a "miraculous recovery".
Letby: "Yes."
NJ: "Were you pleased?"
LL: "Of course I was pleased."
NJ: "Or were you frustrated that you had failed in your attempt to kill her?
LL: "No."

The second event is being discussed. For the night of September 26-27, Lucy Letby was the designated nurse for two babies in room 2. Nurse Christopher Booth was the designated nurse for Child G in room 2, and Nurse Shelley Tomlins was the designated nurse for Child H in room 1. Elizabeth Marshall is the designated nurse for four babies in room 3, including Child I. The court hears a seriously ill baby was brought into the unit during the night.

The court hears Letby, in her evidence to defence on May 15, said she did not have much to do with Child H on the night shift. Letby said she was reliant on medical notes as she did not recall "with any great detail" that night for Child H. Dr Matthew Neame was the registrar that night, with Dr Jessica Scott the night SHO. Letby accepts she had got "confused" in her defence statement between the events of this night and the previous night. She rules out staffing levels as a contribution in Child H's deterioration. She says she cannot comment on medical incompetencies as she was not Child H's designated nurse and was not present for much of the shift, and rules out a doctor or nurse making mistake(s).

Letby is asked if she was involved in an event timed 9.15pm for Child H, who had a desaturation and bradycardia. Letby said she did not remember. Dr Neame, in evidence, said "ETT removed by nursing staff" and that nurse was Letby, alone.
LL: "Well I don't have any recollection of that." A text is shown from Letby to a colleague at 9.51pm: "'I've been helping Shelley so least still involved but haven't got the responsibility..." Letby says she "does not agree" she would have removed an ET Tube by herself. The neonatal schedule shown for 9-10pm shows no duties for Child H for which Letby has been named as the nurse for it.

The trial is now resuming following a short break and a short legal discussion. Mr Johnson is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby on the case of Child H.

Letby is asked about what she had been helping Shelley with, as per her text message - she says she had been helping with Child H. She denies taking an "opportunity" to "sabotage" Child H.

Nurse Shelley Tomlins' note for 9.45pm is shown: The court is shown nurse Tomlin's notes for that shift, which include: '...around 2030 [Child H] had profound desat and brady, air entry no longer heard and capnography negative therefore ETT removed and Drs crashbleeped. New ETT sited...on second attempt...Copious secretions obtained via ETT and orally, blood stained.' 2145 - Desaturation to 40% despite good air entry and positive capnography. ETT suctioned quickly with thick blood-stained secretions noted. [Child H] recovered quickly after...' Letby denies altering Child H's ET Tube to cause bleeding.

Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "bored" with the children she was looking after in room 2 prior to Child H's collapse.
LL: "No." She denies she had "time on her hands". At 12.45am on September 27, Letby is recorded as 'liking' a post on Facebook. At 12.46am, she liked a Facebook photo posted by a colleague. Letby says she may have been on her break at this point. Mr Johnson says Letby was involved in a fluid balance chart for one of her designated babies around that time.
Letby: "Yes, at 1am." Child H's father's statement is read to the court, in which he said "Quite late on [Saturday, September 26]" he went to rest, and was woken up shortly afterwards and to get to Child H's bedside. Letby denies using the time the father was away as an "opportunity" to attack Child H.
LL: "No, I've never attacked any child." Letby says she "couldn't say" if she was covering for Shelley Tomlins at 1am. An observation chart is shown for Child H for September 26-27. Hourly observations are made between 8pm and 4am, except for 1am. Crash call bleep data is made at 1.04am and 1.06am for Child H. Mr Johnson says Dr Neame gave evidence to say when he arrived, Letby was present.
NJ: "Is that right?"
LL: "I can't say, from memory."
NJ: "You were there, weren't you?"
LL: "I can't say exactly where I was, from memory." Letby denies making an "alibi" at 1am for the fluid balance chart for her designated baby.
LL: "That's me giving cares to the baby I was allocated."

Nurse Shelley Tomlins' record, written at 3.49am, for the 3.30am desaturation: '0330 - profound desaturation to 60s, again requiring Neopuffing with no known cause for desat....copious amounts of secretions yielded orally, pink tinged. Small amount of ET secretions gained, again pink tinged. Heart rate mainly normal during desat. Recovered slowly.' Letby denies "interfering with [Child H's] ET Tube".

Letby says she is helping Shelley Tomlins after the desaturation.
NJ: "Why is it always you that ends up in nursery room 1?"
LL: "I don't agree it is always me."


Witness Statements Agreed

Mother

A statement from Child H's mother is being read out to the court.

She says Child H was born in September 2015, and had "a healthy Pregnancy", the only complication being she was a type 1 diabetic. Checks were carried out, but they were primarily for the mother's benefit, not the child.

She was admitted to medical care in September 2015 as her blood sugar levels kept dropping. Once there, staff talked about the possibility of inducing.

She went to hospital and had the view she was not to give birth for a few weeks. She was then visited by a consultant and told that, on September 22, for the birth to take place. There was a complication in that Child H would be a couple of weeks premature.

There were also 'no beds available' in the neonatal unit, or in any other equivalent centres, even as far away as Birmingham.

As preparations were made for the mum to give birth, a bed in the neonatal unit became available.

The birth took place, and Child H was "absolutely fine" and "might not even need to go to the NNU".

Both parents were allowed to hold the baby girl, but she became pale and began grunting.

Child H was then taken to the NNU for oxygen as she was "struggling to breathe".

The mother adds Child H was put on CPAP to assist her breathing.

The parents tried to go into the NNU and were informed that Child H had been placed on a ventilator. They were "quite annoyed" they had not been informed about this, and staff said they had been busy and no-one had found the time to inform them.

After several x-rays, it was established Child H had suffered a suspected lung puncture. The parents remained with her, but could not pick her up.

The following morning, nursing staff said the mum had to come to the NNU "right away" and inform the father to come too.

Child H was being treated, with "lots of medical" people surrounding her. They were resuscitating Child H.

The mum was told to sit with Child H and hold her hand. The staff successfully brought Child H back. The staff could not explain her "cardiac collapse".

Child H was then "doing really well" that day.

The parents had just gone to bed when staff knocked on the door. They said Child H was "not responding".

The parents were met with an "almost identical scene" as Child H was surrounded by medical staff. "Fortunately" this collapse did not last as long.

Following this, Child H was transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital on September 27.

The staff there removed and replaced the ventilator. They checked Child H over and a brain scan "fortunately showed no long-term damage".

Child H "improved dramatically" as soon as she was at Arrowe Park, and within 24 hours she was off a ventilator and back on to CPAP. 24 hours later she was then taken off CPAP, and made "a dramatic improvement".

She was then taken back to the Countess, and the "only difficulty" at that point was getting her to feed.

Child H stayed in the NNU until October 9, when she was discharged "earlier than normal" for a baby outpatient.

There had been "no long-term complications whatsoever" for Child H.

Father

The father's statement is now read out to court.

Child H was "quite healthy" at birth, but was "grimacing" and had complications with breathing, so was taken to the NNU.

The father says he was able to see Child H soon after, and saw she was on an incubator, with breathing assistance.

He recalls being woken up on September 26 and being called to the hospital, and seeing "a lot of commotion going on". He remembers Lucy Letby being there, doing chest massaging.

It was explained to the parents Child H had had "a collapse". He recalls Child H was "a very strange colour" and had "mottling running towards her fingers". A doctor explained the pressurised air in the lungs had caused a tear.

The parents stayed with Child H that day, and she "remained ok that day".

He said it was after they had gone to bed that they had a knock on the door and returned to the NNU.

The staff were in consultation with Arrowe Park.

The father says in the early hours of September 27, Child H was transferred to Arrowe Park, where she came on in "leaps and bounds".

The Arrowe Park was "a completely different setup" and staff were "more proactive", the father says.

Child H returned to the Countess of Chester Hospital and "nothing else really major happened" before she was discharged.

Midwife Deborah Moore

See also: INQ0014592 – Rule 9 questionnaire response of Deborah Moore, dated 15/03/2024

Prosecutor Nick Johnson is reading a statement (which is agreed evidence) from Countess of Chester Hospital midwife Deborah Moore. She took Child H's mother to theatre for her emergency C-section
Ms Moore says from reviewing her notes it was an 'uneventful birth and the mother did not require any additional treatment'

Unnamed nurse (1)

A member of nursing staff, who can't be named for legal reasons, recalls apologising to the parents of Child H for not informing theme sooner of their daughter's condition.
The nurse's statement, read to court, said: "We always try to inform the parents as soon as possible, but not if this is going to comprise health of the baby, if we felt the baby was going to die, parents would be informed right away – never felt the case with (Child H)'

Witness Evidence

Dr Alison Ventress

See also: INQ0018066 – Thirlwall Inquiry Witness Statement of Alison Ventress, dated 26/04/2024.

Giving evidence at Manchester Crown Court on Thursday, January 19, registrar Dr Alison Ventress said she received an urgent bleep call from nurses in the early hours of September 25.

She said she was informed Child H had breathing difficulties, poor chest movement and poor colour.

Child H’s oxygen levels plummeted shortly after her arrival and she called for a consultant to assist, Dr Ventress told the court.

More desaturations followed as Child H received a series of invasive needle treatments for a tension pneumothorax – an emergency situation where air accumulates between the chest wall and lung which causes it to collapse.

Dr Ventress agreed with Simon Driver, prosecuting, that it had been a “rocky night” for Child H.

Mr Driver asked: “Were the causes for those problems identified?”

Dr Ventress replied: “Yes, a tension pneumothorax is something that does happen. You never find an exact cause but for a premature baby needing breathing support it is a known complication of that.”

On the following night shift, she noted a “cluster” of desaturations in a two-hour period.

She said she later found a chest drain – a tube inserted to drain air – was in a sub-optimal position and it had “almost fallen out”.

Dr Ventress noted at 1am on September 26 that a combination of Child H needing more respiratory support and a drop in her blood pressure led her to think she may have another tension pneumothorax.

At 3.24am, she received a crash call from the nurses in the neo-natal unit, the court heard.

Child H had desaturated to a “level of real concern”, she said, and her heart rate had fallen below 100 beats per minute.

She said she was informed that “no trigger was identified”.

Chest compressions commenced at 3.26am when her oxygen levels and heart rate continued to drop, the court was told.

Child H was given several doses of adrenaline before compressions stopped at 3.46am when her heart rate rose to a safe level.

Dr Ventress said: “We followed the cardiac arrest protocol and she recovered, but we never found a reason why she got into that state.”

The court heard that three chest drains were put into Child H over several days before her first sudden collapse.

Cross Examination
Benjamin Myers KC, defending, asked Dr Ventress: “Do you agree there are numerous reasons why a baby on a chest drain may desaturate?”
“Yes,” said the doctor.

Mr Myers said: “If we look at the days leading up to the event on September 26, over those days there have been multiple desaturations with this little girl.”

Dr Ventress said: “Yes.”

Mr Myers went on: “Indeed in the hours leading up the event we are looking at, there was a series of desaturations over the night, weren’t they?”

“Yes,” repeated Dr Ventress.

She also agreed Child H had been suffering for a prolonged period of time from tension pneumothorax and “the reality is she had been through an awful lot of medical activity”.

Dr Ventress conceded it was “conceivable” that babies under that much intervention could suffer “quite a significant collapse”.

Prosecution
Mr Driver asked the witness: “You confirmed desaturations are not uncommon with babies experiencing the sort of problems Child H was experiencing. Are arrests as common as desaturations?”

Dr Ventress said: “No. Arrests are not all that common. I’m not saying they are impossible, but they are not all that common.”

Unnamed nurse (2)

Taken from Dan ODonohue live reporting on Twitter

A former nursing colleague of Ms Letby, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is now in the witness box. She is taking the court through her notes on Child H from 25 September 2015

Asked for her recollections of the events of 26 September, the nurse said she remembers Child H 'became unwell that night and needed some resuscitation'

The nurse is asked about 'a difference of opinion' that occurred that night over whether a baptism should be offered for Child H after her collapse. The baptism was offered to the parents, which was accepted

The nurse and a senior manager disagreed over whether it was the appropriate time for it to be offered

This disagreement arose mainly due to the fact it was early hours of the morning and the unit was busy. The nurse said it shouldn't be 'blown out of proportion'

Unnamed shift leader

The court heard that 13 children were in the unit in the early hours of September 26, with four nurses allocated to their care.

Letby was tasked with looking after a sole baby, Child H, in intensive care nursery room 1.

The evening’s nursing shift leader, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, agreed with Mr Myers that caring one-to-one for a baby such as Child H was “potentially quite a demanding job” for a nurse of Letby’s experience.

But she added: “Lucy was qualified in specialist neo-natal nursing at this time and very competent. She was not a totally inexperienced nurse … and I would trust that she would ask me if she had any problems.”

Cross Examination
Mr Myers asked the witness: “Was there an issue with Lucy Letby being relatively junior compared to others and some debate about her going into Nursery One to look after more poorly babies?”

“Sometimes, yes,” she replied.

Mr Myers said: “And sometimes a bit of an under-the-surface dispute about that, is that correct?”

The witness said: “Yes.”

Dr Ravi Jayaram

See also:
INQ0001986 - Pages 4-6 of [Police] Witness Statement of Dr Ravi Jayaram, dated 10/01/2019
INQ0001982 – Page 11–12 of [Police] Witness statement of Ravi Jayaram, dated 18/09/2017 [?]
INQ0010268 - Page 41 of Transcript of Day 14 of the criminal trial of R v Letby, Dr Ravi Jayaram re Child A, dated 24/10/2022
INQ0107962- Page 121 of Thirlwall Inquiry Witness Statement of Dr Jayaram, dated 30/08/2024
Dr Ravi Jayaram's oral testimony at the Thirlwall Inquiry

Taken from Dan ODonohue live reporting on twitter

Consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram is now in the witness box, he is recalling the events of 26 September 2015. Dr Jayaram was called by junior colleague Dr Alison Ventress in the early hours as medics were having trouble with Child H

Child H needed a numerous procedures to drain air from her chest as she had suffered pneumothorax, this is where air leaks into the space between your lung and chest wall. Dr Jayaram is explaining this condition and how it is diagnosed/treated

Jury are being shown X-rays of Child H, which show excess air in the chest cavity. Child H had a chest drain and two needles (to drain air) in a bid to treat this

Dr Jayaram is currently describing in detail the process of inserting a chest drain

X-rays taken in the early hours of the morning of 25 September 2015 show that Child H's lung had re-inflated after the procedures. Lots of the black (air) present on previous X-rays in the chest area had disappeared

Cross Examination
Ben Myers KC, defending, is now questioning the consultant. He asks whether the act of fitting a chest drain can cause stress to a baby, he says it ‘can raise heart rate’

Mr Myers is asking whether a drain could come into contact with internal structures like the heart, Dr Jayaram says he has 'never seen that happen' - he says anatomical he can't see it, as the heart is surrounded by the lungs and the lungs would have to be punctured

Mr Myers puts it to Dr Jayaram, that due to improvements in medicine, pneumothorax is less common. He says 'generally speaking doctors now are likely to have less practice on chest drains', Dr Jayaram says he 'wouldn’t disagree with that'

He says that is why such treatments are more often carried out by consultants, as they're from a generation when they were more common

Mr Myers is asking Dr Jayaram where the optimum space is to insert a chest drain, he puts it to the consultant that the fifth intercostal space is the best area and is standard. Dr Jayaram says 'it doesn’t matter…as long as it is in, it is going to drain air'

Dr Jayaram eventually agrees that 'ideally' the fifth intercostal space is where a drain would be fitted

Discussion in court is currently centring on the use of different drains - a pig tail train and a straight drain. Child H has a pig tail drain fitted first, by Dr Ventress and then Dr Jayaram fitted a straight drain a short time later.

Dr Jayaram concedes that it would have been easier to fit a second pig tail drain, but there were none available

Mr Myers shows the jury an X-ray of the two drains in Child H. The first as established was in the 'ideal' fifth intercostal space. The second fitted by Dr Jayaram, is not in the fifth intercostal space (his notes written at the time say it is)

Dr Jayaram agrees it is 'clearly' not in there but says the drain is still in a 'good position'. He says it is in the plural cavity and that it is working

Mr Myers is repeatedly putting it to the consultant that the chest drain is in the wrong place. 'No it’s in the plural cavity, you’re focused on process rather than outcome. It needed to be put in. It isn’t going to have any great effect on heart function'

Mr Myers puts it to the medic that the tip of a drain that close to the heart could cause bradycardia if it moves, 'it could' Dr Jayaram says

Mr Myers says if the baby moves, is handled, when it breaths - can all cause the drain to move. Dr Jayaram agrees, but disputes the inference of the questions. He says any movement would be minimal

Mr Myers puts it to Dr Jayaram that he inserted the chest drain in a sub-optimal position and that this contributed to Child H's desaturations in the hours and days that followed. The consultant rejects this, he says the drain was not in the wrong place

He accuses Mr Myers of being focused on process over outcomes, he says the drain was inserted to drain air which it did.

Dr John Gibbs

See also:
INQ0102740 – Page 105 of Witness Statement of Dr John Gibbs, dated 01/07/2024
Dr John Gibbs' oral testimony at the Thirlwall Inquiry

Taken from Dan ODonohue live reporting on Twitter.

Dr John Gibbs, who was a consultant paediatrician at the Countess of Chester in 2015, is now in the witness box

Dr Gibbs' notes from around 5pm on 25 September show that the drain inserted by Dr Jayaram that morning had moved. Dr Gibbs fixed the drain more securely to stop it moving any further

Dr Gibbs is asked if there's any consequence to the drain moving, he says: 'The main worry is it moving out completely and falling out and being useless'

Asked if there would be any internal consequence,

Dr Gibbs says: 'Not that I’m aware of…you wouldn’t want to keep pulling and pushing, that would be rubbing against the lung. Pushing very far in would push against the heart…

'I wouldn’t expect it to cause any trauma or damage to (Child H)at all', he said

Dr Gibbs is now taking the court back over his notes from the early hours of 26 September, when Child H suffered a serious collapse which required CPR and three doses of adrenaline

Dr Gibbs' notes from the time say that it was 'unclear' why the infant went into cardiac arrest. His notes say the likely cause was hypoxia - low oxygen levels - but not clear what had caused that

Cross Examination
Ms Letby's defence counsel, Mr Myers is now questioning Dr Gibbs

Mr Myers puts it to Dr Gibbs that against the backdrop of all Child H had been through - the insertion of multiple chest drains - it was 'no surprise' she had a collapse on 26 September. Dr Gibbs says he 'was surprised' by her collapse as she had been stable

The judge has asked Mr Myers to clarify whether he is suggesting Child H's collapse came as a consequence of the procedures (chest drains/intubations etc), he says yes

He says, with particular reference to the drain fitted by Dr Jayaram, that he wants the jury to look 'where it goes and what it could have done'

Dr Matthew Neame

See also:
INQ0000526 – Pages 10 – 12 of Witness Statement of Matthew Neame, dated 08/11/2018
INQ0102351 – Page 10 of Witness Statement of Matthew Neame, dated 23/06/2024

On Monday, January 23, in the 13th week of the trial before the jury, registrar Dr Matthew Neame told Manchester Crown Court about his involvement with the second incident and how he was twice summoned by nurses on the shift.

The first emergency crash bleep was received after a “profound” drop in Child H’s blood oxygen levels and heart rate as medics discovered her breathing tube was blocked with secretions, the court heard.

Several hours later at 12.55am on September 27, Child H suffered more profound desaturations while on a ventilator – but this time her breathing tube contained no secretions.

Child H’s heart rate plunged to 40 beats per minute at 1.07am and full resuscitation, including chest compressions and doses of adrenaline, was needed for six minutes before she recovered.

Asked how the second crash call was different, Dr Neame said: “The distinction is the lack of clear explanation for the event at this time and the fact that it has happened again in a relatively short space of time.

“Both those things would have made me more concerned about (Child H’s) condition.”

Dr Neame said he thought Letby was the nurse who he first spoke to upon his arrival to the second crash call.

Soon after Child H was transferred to Wirral’s Arrowe Park Hospital where she “came on in leaps and bounds”, said her parents, before she was discharged the following month.

In his discharge letter to Arrowe Park, Dr Neame wrote: “Thank you for accepting this baby who has had two significant episodes of bradycardia (low heart rate) requiring resuscitation, adrenaline and CPR in the last 24 hours with no clear precipitating factors.

“Her care has been complicated by the development of respiratory distress syndrome and pneumothoraces (collapsed lung) but the acute episodes with desaturation and bradycardia do not seem to be directly related to the respiratory problems.”

Nurse Shelley Tomlins

See also: INQ0017279 – Thirlwall Inquiry Witness Statement of Shelley Tomlins, dated 01/04/2024.

Nurse Shelley Tomlins, Child H’s designated nurse on the nightshift beginning September 26, said she would not have been in the baby’s presence throughout. She said she would have been covered by a colleague while on a break or if she had popped out of the room.

She told the court: “Given that she was unwell, I don’t think we would have left her in her room alone but I can’t be sure.”

Ms Tomlins said she she could offer no explanation why Child H’s blood oxygen levels dropped at 12.55am on September 27.

She told Ben Myers KC, defending, that her recollection of Child H was that she was a “very poorly baby”.

Nurse Christopher Booth

See also: INQ0098315 – Thirlwall Inquiry Witness Statement of Christopher Booth, dated 16/05/2024.

Fellow nurse Christopher Booth, who was on duty on both nightshifts, told Mr Myers that Letby had completed an overtime shift that week.

He said: “That was not unusual for her. She was very conscientious.”

Mr Myers went on: “Was she someone willing to work extra or have shifts changed at short notice?”

“Yes,” replied Mr Booth.

Mr Myers said: “Did you find her to be a hard worker?”

Mr Booth said: “Without doubt, yes.”

Asked if Letby became upset as events involving babies continued, Mr Booth said: “Oh definitely. It was a harrowing time. We were all upset. Without doubt, Lucy as well.”

Medical experts evidence

Dr Sandie Bohin

Today Dr Sandie Bohin, one of two paediatric experts brought in by the prosecution, was questioned in detail about the drain fitted by Dr Jayaram.

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, asked whether the tip of the drain might have interfered with the baby's heart or vagal nerve and therefore account for her two subsequent collapses.

Having viewed a series of x-ray images shown to the jury, the paediatrician replied: 'If the tip of a drain is abutting structures in the centre of the chest, that can cause – although I've never seen it – a failing heart rate and desaturation.

'But although it had moved, it hadn't moved after the x-ray on September 26, so I don't think that drain can be the cause of the collapses. By then it had been secured'.

Cross Examination
Cross-examined by Letby's barrister, Ben Myers KC, Dr Bohin agreed that Dr Jayaram had inserted the drain in what was technically a 'sub-optimal position'. But she added: 'He did it as a life-saving measure'.

The paediatrician agreed that there had been delays in intubating Baby H and in giving her surfactant, a protein used to help relax an infant's lungs.

The latter delay meant that when the baby was ventilated the increased air pressure needed had the effect of worsening her pneumothorax.

But again Dr Bohin insisted that staff were dealing with an emergency and that 'there was no option; it was a lifesaving measure'.

She said the butterfly needle left inside the baby's chest might have punctured lung tissue and contributed to the ongoing pneumothorax.

Mr Myers asked: 'Leaving a butterfly needle in situ is suboptimal practice, isn't it?'

Dr Bohin replied: 'Yes, because it's hazardous'.

She rejected Mr Myers' suggestion that the explanation for Baby H's two mystery collapses might have been the cumulative effect of a series of procedures she had been through.

'A baby will desaturate as the result of an event, but it's not cumulative and it certainly doesn't cause a cardiac arrest'.

Dr Bohin also rejected the barrister's suggestion that the pneumothoraces meant Baby H would have fared better if she had been moved earlier to a tertiary unit such as Arrowe Park.

'No, because they can occur spontaneously – and that would mean every baby would need to be born in a tertiary unit, which isn't practical'.

Dr Dewi Evans

Earlier, Dr Dewi Evans, the other paediatrician called as an expert witness by the prosecution, said he believed the overall care Baby H received had saved her life.

At one point Mr Myers accused him of 'deliberately identifying positive factors and ignoring the problems to support these allegations'.

Dr Evans replied: 'No, they are a series of problems that they dealt with, and the proof is she is a well little girl now'.

He added: 'I can't explain the (two) collapses, but the fact that she recovered so well before she left for Arrowe Park is a marker of clinical wellbeing and, retrospectively, an indicator that the care she had was satisfactory'.

Professor Owen Arthurs

Taken from Dan O’Donohue Twitter 03/02/2023

Consultant paediatric radiologist Owen Arthurs is first up in the witness box this morning. He's giving expert evidence on CT scans, X-rays and other images in this case

Dr Arthurs is now going over the X-rays of Child H which show the drains

Dr Arthurs notes that the position of the drains have moved, but he says that the 'precise location isn’t really critical if it’s having the desired effect if it’s draining the pneumothorax' - essentially supporting what Dr Jayaram has previously said here

Cross Examination
Ben Myers KC, defending, is now questioning Dr Arthurs

He's asking Dr Arthurs about Child H and the positioning of her chest drains. Mr Myers asks if he is aware of guidelines on where chest drain should be inserted, in terms of the intercostal space

Dr Arthurs says that the guidance, to which Mr Myers is referring, 'refers to where they go in terms of the chest wall, not where they are inside chest'

Dr Arthurs accepts that a neonatologist is better placed to comment on positioning of drains and clinical impact