HOSPITAL REFORM.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3179, 6 September 1881, Page 2

HOSPITAL REFORM.

[To the Editor of the Daily Tklegraph.] Sir, —I waa rather surprised on seeing that the Hospital Committee could not obtain a quorum at tbeir appointed monthly meetiog, especially wheu Messrs Winter aud Cotterill (the visiting committee) had so recently taken the trouble to pay an official visit to the institution in question, and had gone so far as to have a report prepared ready to place before tbe Committee for their consideration. But, thanks to some one, tbeir light had not to remain under a bushel, for their report was duly published, which at once gave the public an opportunity of seeing the economical viewsjof Hospital affairs these gentlemen had so suddenly taken. The first thing noticeable in their report is the favorable manner in which they speak of the preeent staff, insomuch thatthey found everything clean and in order, and the general conduct of the establishment very satisfactory. But directly afterwards they think proper to mention that the staff in their opinion could be considerably reduced to advantage. They seem, however, to lose sight of the one important fact, that the same i efflcieucy could not possibly be maintained with such reductions as they propose should be made. In the first place it is very doubtful whether a thoroughly competent housekeeper could be obtained at £60 per annum, and it is still more doubtful whether one could be obtained who would undertake the duties with the assistance of only one housemaid. Anyone who has paid a visit to the Hospital, and who understands the amount of work that must necessarily be bestowed on it to keep it in its present cleanly state, will agree with me in saying that it is next to impossible for two, however ablebodied they might be, to keep it so. It would be impossible for the said

housekeeper to attend to anything else than the cleaning department; ehe certaiainly could "not attend to the general interval management of the Hospital. How Messrs Winter and Cotterill make out the great advantages to be derived from this arrangement is beyond any ordinary comprehension. In the next place, one nurse could not reasonably be expected to do duty for both vvards, when we consider the various forms of disease admitted into the Hospital, that oft-times require ODe nurse at least for night attendance, besides the special attendance required in accident casps. It would simply mean that whoever was loolish enough to accept the tempting offer of £70 per annum to undertake the proper performance of the duties assigned them would not for long, be able to stand the severe strain on the constitution this would necessitate. The consequence would be the patients would be neglected, and a worse state of things brought about than at present exists. The only change in the staff that is apparently necessary for the future good management of the Hospital is that some one should be appointed to look after, with the occasional assistance of the paid secretary, the whole of the internal arrangements. This would doubtless lead to a healthier condition of affairs, as no doubt could then arise as to who waa responsible should any irregularity occur. The report makes mention of a considerable sum of money having been lost by not being properly looked after. This is an admission that again brings the Committee in for a large share of the blame, for had they discharged their duties conscientiously this would not most probably have happened. And whilst lam on the subject I might mention that a large saving might be effected if the members of the Hospital Committee would be more judicious in the distribution of orders for Hospital medicine and medical treatment. It is currently reported that anyone who is ailing, and has a friend in any member of the Committee, can at once obtain an order that will get for them, or their friends, all tbat is required in the way of medicine or medical advice. And it is said to be carried on to such an excess that rich and poor alike are taking advantage of it, and are getting doctored on the cheap. Perhaps the Committee will explain this so as to throw a little more light on the subject. Not wishing to trespass further on your valuable space,—l am, &c, V_BA3E. Napier, September 3rd, 1881.