Allegations Of Irregularities At Cherry Farm Unfounded

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30294, 21 November 1963, Page 7

Allegations Of Irregularities At Cherry Farm Unfounded

o evidence of victimisation, homosexuality or improper conduct by members of the staff at Cherry Farm Hospital was found by the district inspector of mental hospitals for Otago (Mr W. H. Reid).

. The Minister of Health (Mr McKay), when he released the report of the inquiry held by Mr Reid last July and August, said Mr Reid held the allegations of misconduct at the hospital were entirely without foundation.

In the report, Mr Reid not only dismisses the allegations’ of the complainants—he com-! ments that there “appears to! have been too much criticism ; of senior officers at the hos-; pital by junior staff.” He is also critical of members of the staff who did not make j their complaints through the! proper official channels. Mr McKay said that he had : directed the inquiry to be! held in terms of Section 72 of the Mental Health Act; after the publication in a weekly paper of anonymous i statements alleging irregulari- j; ties on the part of members’ of the staff and the administration at the hospital. Mr McKay summarised the findings of Mr Reid as fol-, lows:— (1) Concerning allegations of specific acts of a homosexual nature alleged against X. a charge nurse, the in- . spector found “there was no substance in any of these allegations, and in respect of each specific act he found as a fact that the alleged act never took place.” <2l On “allegations of acts from which no inference of . impropriety could be drawn unless it was proved that such acts were intended as a preliminary to an act of a homosexual nature.” the inspector examined seven allegations and found “there was no substance in any of them.” No Favouritism <3 • On an allegation of favouritism of certain patients on the part of X the inspector examined the evidence of 14 witnesses under this heading. The inspector expressed the opinion that “it is inadvisable as a rule for gifts to be made to patients ■ by psychiatric nurses, on the grounds that it is liable to upset patients who do not receive gifts and who know others receive them, and that the making of gifts beyond what is normally expected of psychiatric nurses, creates criticism and jealousies.” <4l On complaints concerning some members of the staff other than X the inspector examined five complaints of this nature and found "there was no substance in! any of them.” <s> On a complaint concerning the hospital treat-, ment of a certain patient, , after examining the evidence i submitted by the patient who! was represented by counsel, I the inspector found that Mr J —’s condition “was the re- i suit of his poor co-operation! and his reluctance to remainj in bed when required to do so. and that his complaint of i lack of treatment by the hos-! pital is not, on the evidence. | justified." '6) On complaints of vic- 1

timisation. the inspector in his findings said: "By victimisatiom I take it that what ■ was meant was that if a member of the staff made a justifiable ccmplaint in a proper way, that fact was i taken into account and affected his position at the .hospital and was reflected in this assessment. Question of Justification | ‘‘l have considered first, was the original complaint by the member of the staff justifiable and made by him lin a proper way; and second, I was the fact that such a : member of the staff had made !such a complaint used as a, mark against him m his posi-! i tion in the hospital or in his I assessment?” Mr Reid con-! tinued. I “Obviously, if a complaint was not justifiable, or if justifiable not made in a proper way, then I think that the authorities would be quite justified in taking those facte into account when the position and the assessment of the member of the staff were under review.” In all some eight complaints of victimisation were inquired into. Mr Reid found that: "On the evidence, there is no substance in the complaints that a nurse was victimised by Ute marks allocated to him. *‘lt appears that the complainants resent any criticism on their personal reports and appear to take it, presupposing that they are excellent nurses, that any remark to the contrary is victimisation. "Again, I consider that all remarks made on the per-; sonai reports were made in! a fair manner.” Under the heading com-! plaints concerning other matters of hospital administration, the inspection also examined in all 11 specific complaints, two by parents of patients and nine by patients. The complaints related in a general way to the treatment of patients, and the evidence on these matters was given at some length during the inquiry. Parents’ Complaint With regard to one of the parental complaints, the inspector found: "The complaint is of a general nature . and I do not think calls for any further consideration by me except to say that has received proper treatment con-! ! sistent with his condition.’' | ! But where the parent 'complained that he had not (been informed that his son had been “committed from i Borstal to the hospital.” the (inspector said: “No evidence j was put before me as to ,whoes duty it was to do so, I but I record this matter here I so that appropriate action lean be taken to ensure that! lin cases such as this, next- 1 cf-kin are notified.”

With regard to the nine ! complaints by patients, in j each case Mr Reid held that I there was no justification for, the complaint. Mr Reid says: “Villa 9 of! the Cherry Farm Hospital, I of which X is the charge' nurse, is a villa for disturbed, male patients. The patients i in this villa are predomin-, antly young, some of them with known homosexual ten- , dencies. “It appears to be a villa , w’here a great deal can be done psychiatrically for the patients, and it is an endeavour by the hospital to rehabilitate these patients into normal life. Lacked Home Life “Some of the patients are! young lads who have never j had the security of a home, nor the loving care of parents for their children that goes with normal family home life in this country. “Many complaints were made at the inquiry concerning X and, as I have already stated, there was no evidence , that substantiated any of the serious charges against him. “In fact, there was no proof whatsoever that he had carried on any homosexual practices, and, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, I feel X is entitled to have it affirmatively stated by me i that, in my opinion, the al-1 leged acts of a homosexual; nature never took place.” “I was referred to a pas-, sage in ‘Ethics and Rules of i Conduct for Staff,’ a small, book published for the Div-! ision of Mental Health. “At Page 6 the following, passage appears:— “The nurse can be inter- j ested in his patients, and, carry out his duty towards! them, without becoming i unduly emotionally in- I volved with them or with their problems. “Not Unduly Involved” , “I do not consider that X had become unduly emotionally involved. He is a completely dedicated nurse and as such must experience some emotion towards those in need of treatment, but I do I not think that he ever be-i came unduly emotionally in-I volved. "Acts of favouritism, plac-: ing his arm around patients’ ' shoulders, and even placing i and allowing his head to re-! main upon those of patients, were something of a matter of course in his treatment of comforting patients who were upset or likely to be disturbed. “I reiterate that there was nothing sinister in any of X's actions. He is a dedicated psychiatric nurse, dedicated to his profession and dedicated to serve those who are mentally ill.” Concerning the matter of proper channels of communication, Mr Reid said:

“In general, there appears to have been too much criticism of superior officers at the hospital by junior staff. “Some nurses feel it their province to criticise the orders and treatment given by the medical staff and the charges. This is not a proper basis on which to run any large organisation. “The hospital will not be a harmonious unit until all staff become firmly convinced that it is essential to observe the proper channels of communication, and to obey and observe the directions of offi-

cers senior in position to them, in a willing and co-operative! maimer. Secrecy Oath “I refer now to the declara- j tion of secrecy which is made! by every servant of the hos-1 pital on becoming accepted! for service. “In view of the Minister of I Health’s request for a full and l open inquiry, and in an en-j deavour to get at the truth of all the complaints in view] of the fact that witnesses! gave their evidence freely, I, ask that no action be taken; tor any breaches of the dec-! laration of secrecy by those; members of the staff who j gave evidence. “Nevertheless, I consider j that it was quite wrong for! servants of the division to I communicate to outside per-I sons and to a newspaper on matters concerning the hospital and which they had solemnly declared not to do. Such action, apart from being wrong, did a disservice! to not only the staff of the, hospital, but also the patients, and the relatives of patients." I Safeguards Outlined He continued: “If there are any improper practices developing in any psychiatric hospital the complainants must have recourse to the methods of inquiry provided by the Division of Mental Health itself or by recourse to a district inspector who is appointed under the Mental Health Act. "With these safeguards > there is no need for members! of the staff to communicate with outside persons on hos-; pital matters when, with the, resulting publicity, patients and relatives of patients are unnecessarily upset.” Counsel had submitted that something should have been done, when the rumours were known, to reassure staff and patients that such rumours had been investigated and were without foundation, and further, that some report should have been published, to the staff on the results! of the two previous inquiries., “I am of the opinion that, some general report should j alw-ays be made to the staff . on the results of inquiries j where the matters dealt with are of a serious nature"I am of the thought, how-, ever, that with the situation; as it developed at this hos-, pital, such report would not i have prevented the subse-, quent trend of events." Mr Reid refers to “the tre- i mendpus strain that the hos-, pital has been under during the last year and during the inquiry. The inquiry quite disrupted hospital administration and could no doubt have had an adverse effect on the patients. “Minor” Complaints “Generally to sum up, all complaints which were substantiated are of a compara-! tively minor nature and j which could well be expected I from a hospital as large as ! the Seacliff group. “That only two parents out of the relatives of some 1300 patients came forward with complaints of non-co-opera-tion by the hospital, speaks highly of the standard of effi-1 ciency of the treatment given I at the hospital. “Having sat and heard evi- j dence at this inquiry for 12 j days. I was impressed by the j efficiency of the admin’istra-! tion of the hospital.” I