ST. HELENS HOME.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 33, 7 February 1913, Page 6

ST. HELENS HOME.

THE INQUIRY PROGRESSING. A LITTLE BREEZE. The St. Helens Hospital inquiry was continued yesterday afternoon after the "Star" went to press, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., Commissioner Mr. Hays put in a statement giving particulars of the nine cases which had ended fatalty since the opening of the borne, and also of the nine cases in which the patient had been removed to the General Hospital—five during the present matron's term of office and four previously. Miss HaLnah Jones, a pupil nurse undergoing instruction at St. Helens Home, stated that she attended the confinement of the late Mrs. Chamberlain at the home on August 11, 1912. The matron was present on that occasion, and gave general directions and assistance to the witness. She did not believe that the patient could have caught cold while on the bed in the operating room, as had been alleged. She saw Mrs. Chamberlain soon after her admission, and the patient told her that she . had been living in the same house as her mother-in-law, who was suffering from a bad leg.

The witness was giving some particulars of the arrangements for the confinement, in answer to Mr. Skdton (for the complainants) when the latter stopped her and protested against a remark which he said that Dr. Inglis, who was sitting not far. from the witness, had made in her hearing. He remarked that the same thing had happened before, b»'t it was becoming so bad that he must protest. Dr. Inglis rose and observed that he had made the remark to Miss McLean, of the Health Department, who Tvas sitting next to him. It was not intended for witness at all and would not have helped her. Mr. Selwyn Mays (solicitor -for the Department) and the witness botii protested that they had not heard Dr. Inglis speak, but the" latter said that he was quite prepared to repeat the remark, which was that the last question was a foolish one to ask a pupil nurse, and he still held to the opinion. Mr. Sfcelton said that he must ask the Commissioner to suppress all such comment for the future, and it was then agreed to move the witness' chair to the other end of counsel's table. Continuing, witness said that patients were occasionally confined in the bathroom, where there was a table for the purpose. She had known several confinements there in her ten months' residence at the home.

In answer to Mr. Mays, the witness said that the bathroom was only used for confinements in cases of emergency, not otherwise. Miss Susan Way, another pupil nurse, stated that she attended Mre. Chamberlain from the second day after her confinement until a trained nurse was called in. She noticed that the patient had a chest cough, and that her respiration was rapid. Mrs. Chamberlain mentioned to her that she had been nursing her mother-in-law, adding that it was a pity that she had to leave the latter. She saw the husband on one occasion when he cailed, and , he then expressed himself satisfied with the progress his wife was making. Miss Martha Broadley, sub-matron, stated that Mr. Chamberlain mentioned to her that his wife was run down as a result of nursing her mother. The patient complained of nothing except a cough and a pain in the side. There was nothing abnormal, as far as she could see, at the end of the second week. • In answer to the Commissioner, the witness said that she was responsible for all cases attended outside the home. These were attended in the early stages by pupil nurses, but these were always followed Up by a qualified midwife. She had met with no septic cases outside, but if one were encountered the nurse would be isolated and would undergo disinfection before returning to her duties. During the hearing Mrs. Nicol intimated that she wished to withdraw a statement of hers which had been entered, namely, that she did not suggest that certain records of the home had been destroyed in view of the inquiry, and that she was satisfied with Dr. Inglis , statement on the point. She now stated that she wished to have the alteration made, as she was in a position to call evidence in support of the suggestion that the documents were destroyed with the motive named.

THE STEVENSON CASE. The inquiry was directed to the case of the late wife of William Stevenson, a railrway employee. Dr. Inglis, called by Mr. Mays, stated that he had no personal recollection of Mrs Stevenson being in St. Helens Hospital The day after Mrs. Stevenson left the Hospital the matron communicated with him. The case was a normal one and there were no notes against the entry in the case book. The day after Mrs. Stevenson was discharged the matron communicated with witness, stating that Mrs. Stevenson had sent for a nurse, and that one had been sent. The nurse had advised Mrs. Stevenson to send for a medical man. The day following the matron informed witness that Mrs. Stevenson lhad been moved to tne general hospital, and asked witness to find out what was wrong with her. Witness ascertained that Mrs. Stevenson was suffering from pulmonary embolism. Witness explained, in answer to questions by the Magistrate, that he had not specially authorised the discharge of Mrs. Stevenson. All he could say was that he had been right round the hospital, and had seen every case, and that as there were no special notes about this case that there was nothing abnormal about it. He went right round the hospital at least three times a week. In normal cases he just looked into the room and asked the patients how they were getting on, and did not spend much time with them.

To Mt. Stevenson: Witness was not sure that he had seen Mrs. Stevenson on the day on which she was discharged. If she was in the hospital he must ha.ye seen her. Mr. Kettle: If she was discharged within fourteen days the records should show the fact. Mrs. Nicol: Do you remember, Dr. Inglis, giving. Mrs. Stevenson her discharge c Dr. Ingiis: I gave authority for discharge in a general way. I do not remember her case particularly. To Mrs. Nicol: The chart produced (concerning Mrs. Stevenson) showed a perfectly normal condition. The notes on Tesf iration provided for in the chart were not taken into account at all except in abnormal cases. THE MATRON'S EVIDENCE. Miss Ludwig, matron at St. Helens Hospital, stated that she had a. general recollection of Mrs. Stevenson's confinement. She was in the Hospital from 11th May to 23rd May. Witness authorised her discharge, Mrs. Stevenson having herself asked that she might be allowed to go. The medical officer had sot,

given any special authority dn Mrs. Stevenson's case for hex discharge. He had given general authority. Witness referred all abnormal cases to the doctor. Mrs. Stevenson twas not specially examined prior to her discharge. When Mrs. Stevenson asked to be allowed, to go she said that she felt quite well. Mrs. Stevenson had made no complaint whatever in the hospital, but was most grateful for the attention she had received. Some time on the day after Mrs. Stevenson's discharge a message came for a nur3e to go to see her. The nurse reported that Sirs. Stevenson was. sitting up in bed, looking very ill, and breat-hing with difficulty. She was afterwards taken to the general hospital. Contiauing, Miss Ludwig said that she had seea two cases of pulmonary embolism, which was very sudden in its attack. To Mr Stevenson: Witness had noticed nothing unusual about Mrs. Stevenson on the day she 'left the hospital. Witness ddd not know that Mrs. Stevenson's heart was weak. Patients were not examined on admission to the hospital. Witness did not think such a proceeding necessary. If patients mentioned that they had been under a doctor, and had ieen suffering from any disease, witness always got a doctor to see them. To Mr. Mays: Patients, on admission, were always questioned as to their general health, and if there was anything worthy of notice it was reported to the medical officer.

ADMITTED TO GENERAL HOSPITAL. Dr. W. N. Abbott, a resident physician at the Auckland Hospital, stated that he recollected Mrs. Stevenson being admitted on the 24th May. She was suffering from embolism of the lungs. She finally recovered from the embolism, but other bad effects ensued, and it was deemed necessary to have her removed to a mental hospital, where she died. Embolism was a complaint that came on without any warning. Witness did not think that it "would have made any difference at all had Mxs. Stevenson been kept in the maternity hospital a day or two. longer.

CONDITION ON LEAVING HOME. Mrs. Cajmody, sister of the la+.e Mrs. Stevenson, stated that she had seen Mrs. Stevenson before the latter went into the maternity hospit*!, and twice afterwaTds, and had been with her on the day of her discharge. Mrs. Stevenson stayed with witness the firet night after her discharge from St. Helens. She seemed to be very shaky, and was excited, and was wheezy in the chest during the whole of a sleepless night. Mrs. Stevenson did not appear to be very bright, but early in lie morning she became really ill, and ■was removed to the General Hospital. To Mr. Mays: Witness lived about half a mile from St. Helens, tnd on the day her sister was discharged they walked to witness's home together. It was not a good day—.witness had not thought that her sister would be allowed out—tout tihe patient was well wrapped up, and they walked slowly. Mies Broadley, sub-matron at St. Helens Hospital, gave evidence as to Mrs. Stevenson's stay in the institution. The patiemt had been up for two or three days before she left the Home. i (Proceeding.)