NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

Evening Star, Issue 22683, 24 June 1937, Page 15

NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

CONDITION OF NURSING SERVICE SICKNESS AMONG STAFF MEMBERS [Pku United Press Association.] NAPIER, June 23. When the hospital inquiry was resumed in the afternoon, further evidence was heard concerning nurses’ sickness. Sir James Elliott stated to Dr Clark (acting superintendent) : There is some question if the nurse was fit to take on nursing in Napier. Was she perfectly normal on August 28?—Presumably so. How many times did you sec her? — Medically, twice. I saw her once to see if she was fit for duty. The bacteriological. examination of the throat would show scarlet fever?— Not very often. I put it to you that there is no way of testing the throat to show that a patient has scarlet fever?—No. She worked among infectious diseases?—Yes. She comes back ill with a sore throat, and in the incubation period after scarlet fever. Have you any hesitation in saying with these facts that she had scarlet fever? —I do not think bo. Had she had scarlet fever it would have been noticeable. But if she was not seen it would not have been. Would it he strange for a lay person with a logical mind to say that the girl was run down and had contracted the sore throat, being ill in bed for some time ?—No, certainly not. It seems that the girl was in bed for 18 days?—Yes. After being up three days she went back to her duties. Was that not taking a risk with her health?—Yes. It would have been advisable to have given her a week’s holiday. Would she have been a menace to the nurses’ home if she had scarlet fever? —Yes. When lie examined the nurse, Dr TGilray said, he saw that she was suffering from trouble with the tonsils and was nervy,. but she said she was all right. She did not want to bo put off duty. It was quite possible that she had scarlet fever,' and he considered it was time she was relieved of her duties. Mr Grant: When you examined her did you see any signs of peeling?—l did not see any. Would you say that the girl _ had scarlet fever?—There was a possibility. So that she might have been infectious and a carrier?—Yes. _ It is possible that she did not have scarlet fever?—lt is possible. Throat trouble might produce lassitude after three weeks, and it was also possible that the t feeling was caused by the throat trouble. Sir James Elliott: When the patient is a nurse in hospital and complains of sore throat it would be the duty of the medical superintendent to see that it does not spread?—lt would be. Dr J. J. Foley (medical superintendent) said that he had taken a swab of the girl’s throat and asked if she had a rash, but she said no. “ I was worrying about diphtheria, not scarlet fever,” he said. “It was negatived by the results of the bacteriological test.” Mr Foden: There is a suggestion that it was undiagnosed scarlet fever? -—lt cannot be detected in the absence of rash. What did you do to cheek up to see whether or not it was scarlet fever?—l regarded it as inflammation of the tonsils. You work on the process of elimination, don’t yon?—Yes. Tho complaint was a sore" throat. The important thing was, if it. was diphtheria, not to miss it. Mr Bate; You have no apology to make for what you did?—No. If the same thing happened again I would take tho same course. You retained the nurse in the sickroom against her will?—Yes. To Sir James Elliott, Dr Foley said that unless he saw a rash be would - not have been able to diagnose scarlet fever. He added that the isolation period for scarlet fever was now four weeks, but if symptoms were still in evidence the cases were regarded as infectious for a longer period. Previously the period of isolation had been six weeks, but a change had been introduced by the Department of Health. _At this stage the commission decided to clear the eburt and to pro-hibit-publication of the evidence of certain nurses.