NAPIER HOSPITAL COMMISSION

Evening Star, Issue 22685, 26 June 1937, Page 13

NAPIER HOSPITAL COMMISSION

QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATION - EVIDENCE ON DIVIDED AUTHORITY [Per United Press Association.] NAPIER, June 25.. When the Napier Hospital Commission sat in the afternoon, Dr J. A. Horry, replying to Mr Foclen, said that the managing-secretary had power to veto any expenditure, major or minor. Mr Foden: You did not resign as medical superintendent because of conflict with him?—No. • You endeavour to stick up for tho rights of the medical superintendent? —Yes. ' ■ . ‘ • You attribute some of the trouble to the fact that tho managing-secre-tary has usurped some of the highest authority?—l. think so. Do you think there has been a lack of cohesion? —Yes. Does it extend from the board downwards? —Yes. The cleavage in the board militates against the successful running of the institution?—Yes. It has been the cause of all the trouble. Had there been a good .head it would hot have Occurred. . . Mr Ifodenr A local. Mussolini ? Supposing someone considered something should be done for Napier, would he be in difficulties if he came against the Hastings faction?—Ho might be sucked. And it has its repercussion?—Right down through the institution. Do you regard the nurses’ response to requests as good?:—They seem a good typo. Are the sisters responsive to suggestions and requests?—Yes. Mr Bate: I think you and Mr Rees do not hit it off too well ?—1 would not say that. You have made remarks, I suggest, in open board against Mr. Rees ?—I should say they, were fair criticisms. You have said he was obstructive on occasions. Can. you give us any recent instances which wore to the detriment of the institution ?-—I think he was diligent in arranging his duties. You are not complaining that the board’s time is wasted by unnecessary requisitions ?—Yes, I did make that statement. You mentioned that the managingsecretary assumed that ho .was in charge of the whole institution, but the by-laws say that the medical superintendent is the head, the managingsecretary being head of the other employees?—lf the medical superintendent wanted a splint made the carpenter would have to refer it to the man-aging-secretary.. Because of the cleavage I found it very humiliating. On what point has the ,board been most sharply divided? —Your.own sqspension as a member of the staff and the dismissal of a sister?—Yes. Is there anything else?—The question of the site of the isolation block has been one matter. , Any cleavage of the board has been attributable largely to your own status and what was to he dpne with the sister? —Yes. , , . Sir James Elliott: There are 50 beds at Hastings and .180 here ?. —Yes. And the operating facilities'are the same?—Yes. . ' You say you- are getting more than your share of the chfphic cases?—Yes. HASTINGS AND NAPIER ' FACTIONS. Has Hastings more, patients per bed per year than,, Napier ?—That is, my opinion. , ‘ . ~ Have you any suggestions how the differences between Napier and Hastings could he reconciled, . because, although Napier is the larger hospital, Hastings gets its share of the medical cases? Sack the board; sack the lot? Yes, that is worth thinking about. Could, you do without the board ? YfiS * Mr Mosley: Can you think of any other suggestion?—Two hospital boards and two hospital districts. What about nationalising the hospitals?—Sack all beards. Would you not object to tho loss of franchise? —No. London has done it. Mr Foden: It is worth looking into. To Mr Lawry, witness said that during his period as medical superintendent he had been proud of the hospital and its examination results, and he considered it one of the best training schools in the Dominion. A sister at the hospital followed Dr Berry in the witness box, out her evidence, as in the cases of the other sisters and nurses, was taken in camera.

BOARD MEMBER’S EVIDENCE. An ex-chairman of the Hospital Board, of which he is at present one of the Napier members, Charles Ormond Morse, gave evidence that it was an admitted fact that there was a cleavage between, the Hastings and Napier members, this having been in evidence for some time, but there -was nothing serious in it. Can you say, Mr Morse, that members always act quite judicially in arriving at their decisions? —In some measures I am of the opinion that they don’t act in quite the right manner. Generally speaking, it, would bo correct to say that that state of affairs did not assist the institution?—Yes. I take it that, generally speaking, you aro & bolicver in tlx© principle ot majority, rule?—Yes, I am. It is the only way that a local body can function reasonably. , • ■ I understand that fairly recently the question of terminating the services or an honorary member*came before the board?—Quito right.' On that occasion I understand that the voting was seven for the termination of his services and three or two against—-Quite right. . , ■ As a supporter of the principle ot majority rule you would concede that in the absence of any by-law the wishes of the seven would prevail against the three? —No, hardly. I believe that a person, before any drastic measures are inflicted, should have a fair and square deal. I think that the board as laymen were not the persons to take measures. . That objection goes to tho root. of tlio principle of hospital board reprer sentation?—Yes, very definitely. If the person whoso conduct was in question was a member of the board it would make it a 'difficult matter for the hoard to discuss and dispose of the position?—Yes. . . I take it, then, that if that situation can arise it is not desirable to have a person acting in a dual capacity ? 1 quite agree. I have brought the matter up in the right quarters, but so far no one has been game enough to deal with the position. I think there are two doctors on the Hospital Board here —Drs Wilson and Berry. Is ])r Wilson a member of the Hastings Hospital staff ?—Yes. If the difficulty could bo got rid ot do you consider that that would be_ m the'interests-of the institution ?—f os, I believe it would, and it would apply generally in tho particular difficulty, that arose. . , , , , J. understand that the board fesd an

inquiry into the desirability pf terminating the services of an honorary doctor who was concerned? —Yes. It is a fact, I think, that it was the Napier group which voted against the termination of his services? —Yea. As a member of that group your impression was that the board, in view of the circumstances, was not the best judge?—Very definitely. “ X happened to, be a member of the committee investigating the Shrimpton Ward troubles,” witness said, “ Right from the outset I thought that we, the board members, as laymen, were not the right people to conduct the investigation. I thought >that the Medical Committee would bo a better investigating committee.” «. Where a body of 10 men meet to decide if one of their employees should bo dispensed with, the vote of the majority should prevail in the absence of any by-law ?—Yes, in ordinary matters. „ ’ . , . You feel that if the man s conduct related to the professional aide you, as a lay board, were not the proper judges?—Yes. DIVISION OF AUTHORITY. Tlie evidence discloses that _ there seems to have been 'a division of authority in the management of the hospital. The medical superintendent, according to the by-laws, is supposed to be the virtual head. You know that? —Yes. . On the matter of the requisition ot medical supplies, I think the managingsecretary’s authority extended even to vetoing the smallest supplies?—Yes. It finally comes after passing through various channels to the man who holds the purse strings. It is necessary that you should have someone in authority to do the initialling, even if a packet of safety pins was required?—l do not think so. ... Mr Mosley; It came out in the evideuce. You agroo tlifiu ii> is not d.Gsirablo to have three captains to one ship?—No, The ship would be wrecked all right. , . ~ . Assuming that it is a question ot two captains—the medical superintendent and the managing-secretary—who should be the captain ?—Very definitely the medical superintendent in .everything affecting the welfare of the jj ogp^a | wished in future to get a first-class medical superintendent he would be required to bo given the status of captain?—Yes, on the medical side of the institution. You have been able to get very considerable grants from the department? —We made application in the eariy stages for £83,000, and we were allocated £66,500 to meet the emergency C °Mr Mosley: How was that money given ?—lnterest free for the first five years and after that 5 per cent, interest and sinking fund for the next 33 years. , . „ m Ha’s that been altered since?—We have exhausted the £66,000, but we have riot the privilege to go back again, and have had to borrow £17,000 privately. , , Mr Grant: At the present time you are still faced with baling to pay interest on £66.000 and £17,000, and in addition you have to repay the principle?—Yes. The reason the building was delayed was that they did not desire a two-story budding after the earthquake, hence the plans were aband°sfrd James Elliott: What right had the hoard to veto the department a plans?— What right had the department to permit it?

board chairman, QUESTIONED. Christian Lassen, chairman of the Hospital Board, said ho thought mein-; hers decided matters dn their merits and there was no block voting, tne managing-secretary was captain on tne business side and the medical superintendent on the medical side. Mr Foden; The matron has sent reports direct to you?—Yes. Is that against the regulations?— Y Wlion did you find that out?— When I told the matron to send her correspondence to the managing-spcretai y. Should any member of the boarcTor medical staff take any member of .the nursing staff for motor rides at night or become unduly familiar with one girl by calling her by her Christian name?—lt would bo detrimental to control. . . , , Mr Bate: What is your opinion about members of the board being on the honorary medical staff?—lt is very undesirable, but Dr Whyte has never caused me any trouble. ... Mr Dowling, referring to Dr Allan Berry: Did you always give the opportunity for free speech?—Yes. . Did you allow Dr Berry sufficient opportunity?—Not when he was divulging committee work. ~' , , , Air Mosley; You appreciate the fact that British fair, play demands for every man an opportunity to defend himself?—Oh, yes, hut he threatened to make public what was taken in committee. Mr Mosley: 1 can’t express an opinion. Do yoix remember the emoting incident when nurses were incensed at the notice in, the home?—l don t think they objected to that bnt to the Pn Sir°James Elliott: Has all possibility of the trouble between Hastings and Napier gone?—Yes. I don’t like two hospitals only 12 miles apart, and you are the only witness who says the trouble has ended.— I would welcome the commission calling other board members. Where do you think the permanent hospital should be?—ln Napier in perpetuity?—Yes. Edward Thomas Rees, .managingsecretary of the board, said he had been in office for 15 years. The medical superintendent was head of the institution. Mr Foden: So you will do anything he wants ?—Most decidedly.; There is conflict in the evidence? — I am telling the truth. Yes. I daresay others told mo the truth?—Yes, but not about the safety pins. Are you aware that a witness said j-ou refused to agree to the purchase of a certain article ?-Yes. He was not telling the truth. When an asthma powder was called for I asked the dispenser if he could make it, but in the meantime a doctor had telephoned for it. You always see the requisitions from the doctors carried out?—Absolutely immediately. Is your ambulance safe?—Yes. Has it been given a certificate of fitness? —No. That’s a fine state of affairs.—The new one will be ready in a month. Are the communications to the matron sent through the medical officer?—No. Do you know the nurses are limited to 5/5 hours a week?—No. The commission adjourned at 10 p.m. till to-morrow, when the last witness will he heard.