A BLOOD specialist told an inquiry into the death of a 13-year-old patient he did not carry out a test that would have shown she had leukaemia because it was at night.

Biomedical scientist Alexander McLauchlan, was working out of hours on the night of June 20, 2004, when Kathryn Beattie was admitted to the Victoria Infirmary, in Glasgow.

He tested the blood samples that were sent to the lab and reported the results but said it was "custom and practice" not to look at a test known as a blood film – that would have shown up the leukaemia – out of hours.

Mr McLauchlan was giving evidence at Glasgow Sheriff Court at the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Kathryn, who died at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow on June 21, 2004, after brain surgery.

The inquiry was previously told Kathryn had suffered from mild flu-like symptoms and started taking antibiotics days before her death but had begun to feel better. She was taken to hospital after her family became increasingly concerned again about her.

After a brain scan that showed bleeding she was transferred to the Southern General Hospital for surgery but died later that day.

The court heard that a blood film test – involving blood pressed between two pieces of glass, stained and analysed – would have been carried out if Kathryn had been at the hospital during the day. But, out of hours – after 1pm on a Sunday afternoon – the machine that is used to stain the film before it is analysed is turned off.

Talking about blood films out of hours, Mr McLauchlan said: "They are prepared ready for staining the next morning, that's what happens every night when we are on call – unless a member of staff phones to say, 'can you look at a blood film for ABC', that would be done."

The witness said Kathryn's blood results, including a low platelet count, would have led someone in his position to look at a blood film if it had been during normal working hours.

Procurator-fiscal depute Laura Millar asked: "Would a platelet count of 13 make you, as a competent biomedical scientist examine a blood film?" He answered: "A film would be looked at."

The court was told there were no standard operating procedures for working out of hours as there were for regular working hours.

He was asked how long it would take to examine such a film and he answered "not very long".

Mr McLauchlan told the court he telephoned the blood sample results to the ward because they were abnormal, which is the regular procedure.

Ms Millar asked: "Is it possible Mr McLauchlan that you did in fact stain and exam a blood film that night?" Mr McLauchlan who has worked at the hospital since 1977, answered: "No."

The witness said that in 2004 he did not think he would have been able to recognise acute myeloid leukaemia, the subtype of acute promyelocytic leukaemia, which Kathryn had. He was asked that in 2004 if he was aware of the subtype and said "no", but said he knew of it now.

Mr McLauchlan told the sheriff: "If I looked at the blood film that evening I could have said that looks suspicious."

The inquiry, before Sheriff Ruxton, continues.