DEATH OF MISS PORTER

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 109, 9 May 1923, Page 6

DEATH OF MISS PORTER

EXPLANATION BY HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES

MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE

DARKNESS.

That there had bee,n unnecessary delay by the officials of the Wellington Public Hospital, before medical attention was given Miss Phyllis Porter, the young actress who was fatally burned through, her tinsel decorated dress coming into contact with an electric wire a? the Opera House on Thursday evening, was one of the complaints made by Mr. John Farrell, manager of "The Peep Show," and the wardrobe-mistress, Miss A. A- Barber, at the inquest before the Coroner, Mr. F. K. Hunt. S.M.. at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. After hearing: the evidence, the Coroner wrote to the secretary of the Hospital Board as follows.: —

"At the inquest I held this mornine on a girl named Phyllis Porter, who died in th« Hospital on the 6th inst.. Mr. Farrell, the manager of the theatrical company in which she was employed, and Miss Barber, the ballet-mistTess, complained very bitterly about the delay that occurred before Miss Porter received medical attention after her arrival at the Hospital. Mr. Farrell states that although he telephoned that he was bringing the patient, ehe was sent, first to the Children's Ward, then to No. 1 Ward, then to No. 2, and finally back to No. 1; and that so much time was wasted that he thought oftak ins her to his home and getting her attended to there. I will not set out his other complaints . as they will probably be repeated. I did not adjourn the inquest to inquire into these complaints, feeling sure that directly I reported the matter to you, yo_ur board would go into them. The theatrical company remains here a week longer, and Miss Barber and Messrs. FaiTell and Steyne are available at any time to <?iv'e evidence at the inquiry, which I trust you will make." Investigations have been made by the Wellington Hospital authorities in regard to the complaints made at the inquest that there wv> undue delay in the treatment of the patient on arrival at,, the Hospital. Those on duty deny thatjj any telephone message was received, as' stated, advising that a serious case was I on its way. The first intimation received with respect to the matter was, it is j asserted, when a man entered the front door of the Hospital about 8.30 p.m., and stated that a child had been burned, and asking for a stretcher. From .the words used, the porter on duty understood that the patient was a child, and he at once went for a stretcher on which j to remove the patient from the motorcar to the children's ward. By the time he arrived with the stretcher, the doctor on duty was at the car to see the child, as he understood the patient to be. The night was dark, and ha was told that the patient was in too much pain to be i examined in the car. The doctor therefore sent the patient to the children's ward. A message was telephoned to the ' children's ward stating that a case was j being taken over there. A cot and a j bed were immediately prepared in the children's ward, and these were ready when the patient arrived. The nurse then discovered the patient to be an j adult, and rang up the doctor, who ordered the case to be transferred to ward 2. Owing to the mistake of sending the case to the children's ward, ward 2 was not notified to be ready to receive a patient, and thus naturally preparations had not been made for the recep-' tion of the patient. The sister in charge of ward 2, realising that it was an urgent case, and thinking ward 1 had a bed ready, decided that it would save time and be in the interests of the patient to be attended to there. The_ pat- j ient was in bed by 8.45 p.m. It is ex- I plained that the routine practice when the porter on duty receives a telephone message that an urgent case is on its way, is to at once inform the medical officer on duty; but in the present instance, it is asserted, no telephone message was received. As requested by the Coroner, the Hospital Board will have all the circumstances thoroughly investigated.