‘Overhaul may be due at Oakley’

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 1

‘Overhaul may be due at Oakley’

PA Auckland Procedures at Auckland's Oakley Hospital could be due for an overhaul, said the chairman of the Auckland Hospital. Board. Dr Frank Rutter, yesterday. Speaking after an inquest into the death of a patient at Oakley, he said: "I have no doubt that the board would be equally concerned about the matters given in evidence. “I also have no doubt that the board would want to institute its own inquiries to ensure that the procedures at the hospital which are deficient are improved." The national director of the Nurses' Society. Mr David Wills, said that he would be “following up" two aspects of the Coroner's finding.

"Regretfully I have to agree with two points: the lack of observation and primitive resuscitation." said Mr Wills. The Auckland Coroner, Mr A. D. Copeland, found that Michael Percy Watene, aged 35, died because Oakley Hospital staff failed to observe him properly after his shock treatment.

The Coroner said he could not rule out the possibility that Watene’s death had resulted from an air blockage because of the fact that he had been left unattended for 15‘to 20 minutes after electro-convulsive therapy (E.C.T.) and he had died in that time. If someone had been there observing Watene, attempts at resuscitation could have been begun immediately, the Coroner said. Watene. a labourer, of WhangarOi, died in Oakley Hospital on February 22. The Coroner said that

there were three aspects of the evidence regarding Watene's treatment at Oakley which he felt bound to comment on. and he directed that they be referred to the hospital board for investigation. They were: • Observation of the patient after E.C.T. "The recovery from E.C.T. requires adequate observation," the Coroner said. “The evidence shows that Watene was left unattended for 15 to 20 minutes, during which time he died. That is a matter, surely, for some concern.” • Resuscitation methods. The Coroner noted that the methods used in the attempt to revive Watene- had been described in evidence as extremely primitive.

• The administration of drugs. "It appears that drugs were -administered by different persons without reference to one another and no check, it seems, was made at any stage on the quantity of drugs administered ‘to

Watene." the Coroner said. Earlier, the Coroner had refused to admit two witnesses whom Mrs Lorraine Smith, representing Watene's family, had asked to introduce.

He said that the proposed witnesses, a nurse aide at Oakley. Mr Michael Broadfoot. and a part-time recreation officer at Oakley, Mr Gregory Newbold, were not credible. Mrs Smith had said earlier that Mr Broadfoot would testify that Watene had been physically beaten, administered 3 L 2 times the normal amount of a drug, and given more shock treatment than was stated in earlier evidence.

The Coroner said that he could not place credence ,on Mr Broadfoot's evidence, as he had not given it to the police investigating the death when he made a statement to them.

Mr Newbold was- a univer- 1 sity student employed during, university holidays ?as a'.fecreatiori officer. “He..is not a nurse, he had nothing/ to’ do ’ with Watene, and his evidence js based purely on hearsay,”; the Coroner said. “When he was- asked to give, a statement to the police he refused;.saying, and. I quoted ‘The? Coroner and -Dr ‘‘ Savage (the • superintendent at Oakley)--are working together ..to cover up malprac- . tice on; Watene?.”-> v J The Coroftef-refuted; 1 the’ suggestion, entirely).::;/;-. , : “I want to make it quite clear- that I have not seen, heard from, or, communicated with Dr Savage in any way) until I saw him in the lift; on Tuesday,” he said. The. Coroner noted that Mrs Smith had originally asked to call 21 witnesses

and that 'the number had since been reduced to three. . Her first.witness, a funeral

director, Mr John: Young, was to have given evidence against “the ’ pathologist, that he-. had : “ not- ■-■examined the body properly?/? it; "This was dropped after the pathologist gave his'evidence-,”. the Coroner said. “Mr Young has on two previous occasions made allegations' which have .proved false.” ' . • . ■ . Representing the Auckland Hospital Board, Mr David Morris Said that allegations and. innuendos had been made, during the inquest implying , not.- only. carelessness and ngglect by hospital staff but also alleging assault, removal. even-the falsifying of -hospital records and the giving of false testimony. They were allegations of the’ most serious nature, "made against men of the highest medical standard, among them nurses who

have 'spent a lifetime • dedicated to their profession,” Mr Morris said. He noted that Mrs Smith and Dr Rodney. Harrison, representing the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, had said in their submissions that they had experienced great difficulty in getting cooperation from other doctors when seeking information for the hearing. They had said they believed ■ that the doctors feared repercussions from the Hospital Board. By saying this they had “smeared the entire medical profession,” Mr Morris said. Mrs Smith said later that the Waterie family might sue the Auckland Hospital Board for negligence as a result of the Coroner’s finding.

She said a decision would, be taken after she had discussed- the matter with the family in Whangarei, and senior legal counsel in Auckland. .