HOSPITAL DEATHS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 153, 30 June 1944, Page 6

HOSPITAL DEATHS

BOARD DISCUSSION

USE OF ANAESTHESIA

Referring to two recent deaths under I anaesthesia in the Wellington Hospital, Mr. V. M. Simpson, speaking, at a meeting of the Hospital Board • last night, asked whether the' superinten-dent-in-chief considered any disciplinary action was needed in regard to any merribers of the staff,'and, if so, whether it had been taken. The chairman, Mr. H. F. Toogood, said it had always been considered desirable for the. board to deal with such matters in another way. The medical superintendent was not "on the spot," and it was unbecoming to ask him the question. If any disciplinary action was necessary it would be taken. Mr. W. S. Cederholm said he believed an inquiry should be held. The board was elected by the public and should satisfy itself that everything was all right. Several people had told him that they would not come to the hospital. The board wanted to restore public confidence. . Miss A. Kane said it might be a good thing if the medical superintendent assured the board publicly that steps had been taken to see that a like incident did not occur again. -■■ ■ ■ Mrs. Knox Gilmer said that, as former chairman of the staff and,house committee, she could assure members that, out of the thousands of operations performed' in the hospital—including dental, about 1000 a month—there were very, very few deaths under anaesthetic. The hospital had the highest possible standard. The staff generally obeyed the rules implicitly. The public had nothing to fear from any of the medical staff incoming to the hospital. Mr. Simpson emphasised that he had the utmost confidence in the medical superintendent, and he agreed that the hospital's record was one to be proud HOSPITAL RULE. The supei'intendent-in-chief (Dr. J. Cairney) said he would first draw attention to the fact that it had been clearly stated in evidence at the inquest that the change in anaesthetists, which constituted a breach of the rules, was not the cause of death in either of the cases. The rule,, which he had made himself, • had been in existence for several years and had generally been very well observed. There had always been a let-out, however, because the rule contained the .words "except in circumstances of extreme urgency." He felt that- that proviso must always stand, otherwise serious danger would be created. In certain hospitals, including one ■of those in the four main centres—a training hospital—changes were frequent and were looked on as normal procedure. After the two occurrences to which reference had been made, he had set out his opinions in a confidential memorandum to all visiting anaesthetists, and had also addressed all house surgeons at a special conference. At that time there were several .reasons for deferring consideration of any possible disciplinary measures. For one thing, the ( matter was in the hands of the Coroner, and ii was undesirable' to appear to prejudge the facts before him.' At the inquest it had been clearly stated in evidence that the change .of anaesthetists had nothing to do with the cause of death in either case. He did not, therefore, propose to take any further action, unless a committee of the board de- ; cided otherwise.

Mr. Simpson said he was satisfied with the statement which had been made. . ' ..