“STATE OF CHAOS”

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1935, Page 9

“STATE OF CHAOS”

GREY HOSPITAL CONDITIONS. DR. BRIDGMAN’S ALLEGATIONS. That, when he was appointed to ’ his present position, as Medical Superintendent, last.year, the Grey Hospital was in a state of chaos, was one of the allegations made by Dr. J. W. Bridgman, in the course of his evidence in the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday. Tho hearing was continued, in the afternoon and evening, of the caso in which a sister formerly on the nursing staff, Miss Ellen Mary Alberta Hayden, charged Dr. Bridgman with assaulting her, in the hospital office, in the early hours of Febbruary 1. Mr H. Morgan, S.M., presided. Mr T. F. Brosnan represented ‘the informant, and Mr C. S. Thomas, of Christchurch, appeared for the defendant. There were crowded galleries throughout the two and threequarter hours the case occupied in the afternoon, and again in the evening, many being unable to gain .admittance. Yesterday, the evidence for the informant was concluded,, and the evidence of defendant was taken. There were many allegations of a startling nature- on both sides of the case. In the resumption yesterdayafternoon, the medical witnesses for the informant were called. Dr. J. F. C. Moore said he was first communicated with by plaintiff about 2.20 a.m., on February 1, and arranged to see her about 9.10 o’clock that morning. Witness and Dr. Bird both conducted the examination. She was agitated, and had on the inner part of the right arm, towards the triceps, an elongated bruise reddish to dark blue in colour, and about two and a-half by one to one and a-half inches in size. About the middle of the bruise were three paler areas, which could have been produced by fingers. On the back aspect of the upper left arm, near the elbow, there was swelling, redness and bruising, about two and a-half inches in diameter. The bruises looked as if they had occurred within the previous 12 hours. The injuries he saw were consistent with what Sister Hayden told him, and also with the evidence she gave yesterday. The paler areas Within the bruising on the right arm looked as though they had been caused by the presure of fingers. Examining the photographs, witness agreed that the bruising was as he had found. To Mr Thomas: It was a fact that some women bruised ivery easily about the arms. Witness did not see any thumb marks on the arms, or any finger marks othei - than the ones he had mentioned. He had no recollection about having reported plaintiff to the Board in 1931. i Mr Thomas: Do you remember a committee of the Board investigating certain staff matters at that time? —They might have. z Mr Brosnan: Were those investigations not private? , Witness: So far as I knew they were. Mr Thomas: Do you not recollect that at that particular meeting, you said that this particular nurse was a menace to the patients?—l don’t know whether I did or not, but the report of that meeting was taken down by an enemy of mine. . Did you say that, or did you not?— I don’t remember saying it. Will you deny saying it?—l will neither admit nor deny it. Mr Thomas: That will do me! He-examiued by Mr Brosnan, witness said he did not see how the bruise on the right- arm could have been caused by plaintiff falling over. Mr Thomas said he did not suggest that the bruise on . the right arm had been caused by a fall.

“N’dT A THEATRE.” Continuing, Dr. Moore said he would not expect to find such bruises on the arms of a person having been forcibly restrained while in a state of hysteria. If he did report Sister Hayden in 1931, it was probably for some routine matter, but it was certainly not a question of her credibility. Mr Thomas here objected to the noise from the back of the Court, stating that tho Court-roni was not a theatre. On the previous day, he said, someone had definitely applauded the answer of a witness. The S.M. upheld Mr Thomas’s protest, and issued a. warning that anyone talking or making undue noise would be put out. Re-examined by Mr Brosnan, Dr. Moore said that he could not recollect making any such statement about plaintiff, and further that he did not receive any report of his complaints that he could check or sign tor the Board’s records. He took the proceedings as confidential. Under rc-examinatiun by Mr Thomas, witness said it was possible that in cases of slight hysteria, if a person’s arm were held fairly gently in a form of restraint, it might bruise. Dr. W .A. Bird corroborated the evidence of Dr. Moore, Mr Thomas accepting the evidence, without crossexamination.

Mr Thomas produced the gowns worn by plaintiff, stating that there had obviously been no tear in any of the sleeves, ,and that he would call evidence to show that plaintiff’s attention had been drawn to the seam uf one giving way prior to the alleged assault. Recalled to examine the gowns, plaintiff said she remembered sending one soiled uniform to the laundry the day she left the hospital, which was the day after the Board meeting. She had one clean uniform in her possession at the time, and received two from the laundry on the Monday following the occurrence. The day she left the Hospital, there were throe clean uniforms and one soiled Uniterm in her room. The soiled one of the three with the scam torn at the shoulder was nut into her linen bag, in the presence of Sister Moffatt. One o£ the gowns produced looked to be tho one she was meaning when she was allegedly assaulted. There was stitching on the sleeve, where the seam had been stitched. On previous occasions seams in her uniforms had come undone, but none to the extent that the one produced had. Had it been undone to that extent on the night of the occurrence she would not have gone on duty with it, as she had another clean one. Examined by Air Thomas, witness said the sleeve was torn out of the scant nt the arm-hole, but the material was not torn. On previous occasions senior nurses had drawn her attention to seams coming undone, but not the day before or two or three days before the occurrence. Recalled, Dr. Bird said there wax no thumb mark on plaintiff’s right arm. He would expect to find thumb

marks when the hand was used as a restraining force. Witness Was re-examined by Mr Thomas, who demonstrated several holds on witness’s arms, pointing out that it would hardly be possible for the arms to be bruised as in the photographs, had they been held in the manner described by plaintiff. This closed the case for the plaintiff.. ADDRESS BY MR. THOMAS. Mr. Thomas dealt at length with the evidence- for plaintiff, making an address of over an hour. First he said he would deal with a personal _ attack made on him by Mr. Brosnan, who pretended great indignation that he (Mr. Thomas)'should have had the temeritv

to go to the Hospital and see certain witnesses whom he (Mr. Brosnan) had subpoenaed. He (Mr. Thomas) contended he had a perfect right to adopt that course, and Mr. Brosnan could not suggest that because he had subpoenaed those witnesses that he had the right to keep them, as it were, in a cupboard, and allow no one else to see them. He drew the attention of the Court in the fact that the nurses under examination on the previous day said that all he (Mr. Thomas) asked them for, was the truth, as to what they had seen and heard. Also, he mentioned that he had the Matron present when the probationers were being questioned, so that there would be no suggestion of their being persecuted. i

The case, itself, said Mr. Thomas, was very peculiar; if it had taken place in an ordinary business house the matter would have been cleaned up in a short time. Unfortunatel- the atmosphere surrounding the case was very bad. He supposed there was not an institution in the length and breadth of the country that had been more harshly criticised than the Grey River Hospital. Some time ago there was a change in the medical staffing, and from some 50 or 60 applicants, the defendant was appointed medical superintendent. When he arrived he had literally to clean up the Augean stables. There was extraordinary laxity and lack of discipline. Some nurses were incompetent; others, were competent and were not willing to work or abide by the rules; while others there were who were competent and willing. As a result large numbers of nurses loft the institution, while others loft while the “going was good.” He was informed that some were dismissed because they had been taking drugs, others for drunkenness, and others, again, for making false references. Altogether the reasons tor the dismissals disclosed a disgraceful state- of affairs. Dr. Bridgman was the man primarily responsible for the restoration of discipline, and, backed by the Board, he now had the Hospital in a far better state of efficiency than it had been iii for years; Plaintiff had been there a number of years, and had been in continual trouble. She saw in the discipline inaugurated and insisted upon by defendant, the persecution of herself, and had protested against it. The outlook of plaintiff ho contended, was most important. She felt that as the doctor had complained to her on numerous occasions about the dirty wards, anil dirty backs, that she was being persecuted, and she felt extremely sore. There was trouble on the ninth of January, and then she resigned. The next day she withdrew her resignation, because, as she said, she had not given the 28-days’ notice required by the by-laws. Yet, on that day, when she was passing the office window on about lunch time, and he had the evidence of three women on the office staff on that point, when she was asked if she had not finished up she said she might not be going, and that she had “them thinking this time.” She added, he said, that there would “be some sore heads before this is finished.” The Court must agree that that was a threat if ever there was a threat. The position on January 31 was that Dr. Bridgman had reprimanded her on numerous occasions; and the Matron had reported her; that she considered she was being persecuted; and that she had made a threat to people in the office. The defendant had had a report that the information contained in the report book concerning an old woman having got. out of bed, was wrong. He asked her to come to his office on the morning of Fobraury 1, and discussed with her the entry in the night report. She denied the statement made by the nurse Busch, and complained bitterly that the defendant should take (ho word of a junior against her word she being a senior. This, of course, led to words, as the court would agree, and really she gave him what could be termed

A THOROUGH TELLING-OFF. Ho ordered her out of the office, she ordered her out of the office, she, meanwhile, making the most impudent and insolent remarks to one who was the Superintendent of the Hospital. He told her to get out, and that she was suspended. He walked towards the door, following her, and saying that he would report her to the Matron. With that, she raised the torch she had in her hand as if to strike him. The Doctor considered she might use the torch, so he slammed the door. After all, why should the doctor go into the office after he had allegedly knocked her almost senseless, and lock himself in? Whattiould he be frightened of? After snipping the lock, ho rang the Matron and told her that plaintiff- had been suspended, and that she was to bo replaced. The story was perfectly clear and simple. * Counsel said that In all cases the onus of the proof was on the prosecution. and in a case such as the present, the onus was a great deal more on tho prosecution. The case resolv-i ed itself into a question of one word against another. The nurse, he said, went into the box on the previous day and contended (hat her entry in the record book, “She was out of bed once,” was a proper entry. He contended it was a most improper entry. There was no indication as to whether the patient, fell or merely got out out of bed. or as to what effect, if any, the occurrence bad had. After a lengthy demonstration with a chai”, and quoting the evidence of plaintiff, counsel contended it was a physical impossibility for defendant to swing nlaintiff round and out of the room using his left arm. in the manner contended by plaintiff, and still make the bruises. Ho suggested that want happened was that as she was stepping hack out ot the ofl ce she collided with the wall or door, injuring Ir’i left arm: that she became hysteroul on examining her elbow, and that us tho nurses were endeavouring to restrain her when she wanted Io go to the Matron, they made Um brut-.e on her right arm. The nurses who endeavoured to calm her. it would be noted, were not senior nurses. , 'l-icy were probat’oners—nut the mo-.t com-

petent to deal with a case of hysteria, and in holding her arm could, easily have made the bruise, if her arms were easily bruised. It was absolute proof, he suggested, that the marks were not such as would be made by an enraged man of defendant’s build, in throwing a slight girl out of a room, for in addition to the nature of the bruise, there were no thumb murks. Counsel drew the attention of the Court to t?.e manner in which Petrie gave her evidence. Her whole attitude, he said, was typical of the insolent way in which the Superintendent was treated, was one of sheer impudence, and showed that she was quite incapable of giving, unreserved and unbiased evidence. Two doctors found no sign ->f thumb marks, nor did (he photographs show any, and yet that girl said she saw them. Concluding, Mr. Thomas asked the court, with ail due respect, to get the facts in their proper perspective. It was a serious matter, because whatever the result, the effect on the doctor and his position would be serious

DEFENDANT IN THE BOX. Defendant said his degrees were taken at Edinburgh. He took charge of the Grey Hospital about October last year, when the Hospital was in a state of chaos. There was no discipline, and he had tried to improve matters, with, he hoped, a certain amount of success. Some of the. staff had been dismissed, some for drunkenness, some for making false reference, and some for taking dangerous drugs. Three years ago, the drink bill at the Hospital was £325, and now it was £l2 or £l5 a year. It had involved a certain amount of unpleasantness to himself in his endeavours to improve the Hospital, and he was not treated well by all the staff. He had had to complain about plaintiff’s work on many occasions, the first being in the first week he was there, when a patient was sent to the theatre, with her teeth still in. Her work had even been commented upon by the Assistant Director-General of Health. Her ward was in a filthy condition, and the Assistant-Director General had recommended that three junior sisters, of whom plaintiff was one, be dismissed. About, the end of November witness complained that a certain patient was not receiving due attention, and the Matron gave orders to plaintiff to take special care of the patient. That patient had a broken pelvis, and when his dressings were being done plaintiff was found sitting on a chair by his bed while two incompetent nurses were doing the dressing . On January 9, he and Dr. McCullough went to a ward to do a small operation—removing some blood from a vein. Plaintiff was told to prepare the instruments, but when the operation was to commence, witness found that the needles were too small. He complained to plaintiff, who, as usual, blamed someone else, this time the theatre sister. She abused witness and said she wanted to see him in the office. The Matron went along with him, and plaintiff accused him of persecuting her. She became abusive and was told to go off dutv and to come back on duty when she apologised. As she left the office about 12 o’clock she said, “I’h get even with you for this.” She put in her resignation to take effect; from 12.30. That evening, when there was a committee meeting on, ho mentioned the matter of her resignation to the Chairman of the Board, who had come to fhe theatre, after the meeting. The Chairman instructed him to accept it. On the following day, she withdrew her resignation. About 4.50 a.m., on January 30, a porter came to his home and reported that a patient had died. He was in tho Hannan Ward, where the death had occurred, within fifteen minutes, and found that the- patient had been dead about three hours. She had sent a porter, where she could, and should, have 'phoned him. He mentioned this to her, and said he would call Dr. Barrett if site wished, but she said that it did not matter. He reported that the Matron. Ou tho next day, there was a woman reported as having been out of bed once. That was not a correct report for such a happening in the night. He was informed by the Matron that the patient had fallen out of bed, whereas the report merely said “out of bed. He did the rounds between 7 and 8 p.m. that day, and bringing his car back to (be garage in tho hospital grounds, be went into the hospital after midnight. ]!o went to Hannan Ward, and asked Nurse Busch about the patient, and tho nurse, a second year nurse, said she had fallen out. He warned her about the possibilities of an elderly patient falling out of bed, and the nurse said she had informed the sister (Hayden). Witness went to the other end of the building, came back and eventually went to Victoria Ward, to ask the nurse if she had seen the night s’ster. There he found Sister Hayden, and she went with him to the office, where she gave him the night report. He then made a red mark round the report in question, and asked plaintiff why she had not made tho report correctly. She fiaied up and asked why he had taken the word of a junior nurse in preierence to her’s, she being a senior sister. bne became very abusive, and said, ye got someone who’ll fix you over this, Bridgman.” She repeated that a couple of times, and did not stop talking, so he told her to get out of the office. She backed towards the door, and was standing outside the arch of the door, almost in the corridor. Witness told her she was, suspended. 8,. this time he had taken off the string which held the door open, and he told her he would ring the Matron and tell her she (plaintiff) was suspended. At no stage did ho say he would get the police. She lifted the torch as if to strike him, and he closed the door, snipped tho lock, went inside to ring the Matron. There was a noise on tne door as though it had been struck by a. I torch, and he heard a call. He then rang the Matron, and told her to replace plaintiff, who had been suspend-, ed. Witness heard screamsr in the corridor, and found plaintiff with some nurses. Ho then told Nurse Busch that plaintiff had denied what she (Busch) had said about the patient falling out of bed, but Busch reiterated He did not lay his hands on plaintiff that night, nor at any other time. Examining tho photos, witness said some women’s arms did bruise more easily than others, particularly in the part where the bruises were shown in the photograph. In that part, the tissues were loosely connected and soft, and blood flowed there easily, making bruising easily.

"A TERRIBLE PLACE." To Mr Brosnan: The hospital was a terrible place when witness came to it. He bad had a certain amount of trouble at the hospital t Wallace) he came from, and had found cases of drunkenness among the staff. He hud been in hotels himself, and did take a drink. Mr Thomas again registered p pro-

test about the “theatre” being open again, and that altogether too much noise was being made in the back of the Court. The S.M. agreed with counsel, and instructed the clerk to telephone to the police station for another constable to help to maintain silence, as there was only one on duty at the Court. Continuing, under cross-examination, witness agreed that an assault case had arisen at Riverton, following his presence in a hotel. That case was not similar to the present one. In that case, a returned soldier, by name Spencer, had applied to the Southland war fund for a grant. He wrote to the fund stating that he had been an out-patient at Wallace hospital for two years. When the matter was referred to witness, he said he-had not seen the applicant in the hospital during the. time he was there, and recommended that as the man evidently had plenty of money to spend on drink and gambling, and was receiving a full military pension for a five per cent, disability, no grant be made. One night as witness was going to an hotel, where he regularly attended an elderly lady, he noticed twq or three people sitting in a bar parlour. He spoke to them for some time, when this pensioner came through, knocked at the slide and called for drinks. He looked at witness and said something about his application, and witness said: It’s a wonder you have enough money to spend in hotels. Ihe pensioner’s wife then came out and both objected to him. The lady tried to pull witness’s nose and the man tried to strike witness, but somebody pushed them away. Witness kept his hands in his pockets.. Two days later, the local constable asked him to call at the hotel. Witness was asked what the trouble was, and both he and the proprietor were astounded to hear that there had been trouble. It was explained that 'the constable had received word on the previous day, from a doctor, that a, man had been badly battered and was not expected to live. The constable had found the man sitting up in bed. The man said there was nothing wrong with him, and that he did not wish to lay any charge. The constable went on his way, and next morning, on a complaint from the man’s wife, he again saw the man, who said he had laid no charge, but that someone else had. That someone else was a practitioner (Dr. Trotter) from there. The man was examined by three doctors from Invercargill. In the charge he was supposed to have suffered a haemorrhage, broken ribs and bruises, and the evidence of the three medical men and the x-ray was that there was absolutely no evidence of the injuries The explanation of what looked like bruises was mustard poultices frequently applied. Witness, received the judgment in his favour and was not even callcd to give evidence. All his witnesses were called. He did not see a repoit of th? case in the “Southland Times.” Complainant’s story given to the Court was at variance with the story riven for witness. There was a question that witness had shaped up to the pensioner. He agreed that, the present case seemed a case ow his word against plaintiff’s. The consequences, if he lost the present case, might be serious.

This closed the afternoon sitting, at 5.45 p.m.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION Continuing cross-examination after the tea adjournment, defendant admitted that he received a request by letter for an assurance that thWe would be no repetition of the alleged treatment of plaintiff, but that he did not reply until he received advice from his solicitor. Witness put the letter from counsel before the Chairman of the Board, and the whole case was discussed. As a result of that discussion plaintiff was dismissed. Witness instructed plaintiff to prepare the materials to enable him to perform the operation of removing blood from a vein. The needles plaintiff handed to him might have been sterile, but they were not the right type, and the right ones had to be sent for. A trained nurse such as plaintiff should ha>e got the right ones. Plaintiff did not, on that occasion .ask to see witness in the office, when at the bedside. It was at. the corridor. It was the usual practice to make a verbal report to the Matron, its well as writing up the night report book. In the verbal leports, there was sometimes somethingadditional to what was in the report. Whatever’ was reported verbally was supposed io be in the night report book. It was the Matron who reported the incident ot\ plaintiff sitting beside the bedside of a patient, while two junior nurses attended to the patient. Anyone who said that that was incorrect must be telling lies, if the Matron’s report was correct. Mr Brosnan said that he would call evidence to rebut the evidence of defendant on that point, and to state that plaintiff did the dressing with the assistance of other nurses.

Continuing, witness said that eventually plaintiff did assist in dressing the patient concerned, but she had been ordered to. The night report book was not in its usual place on the night of February 1. He understood that it was not there, and asked her to bring the report book in, or words to that effect. When she came in, lie found that she already had the report book there, but it was on a’ shelf. The filthy condition of Seddon ward was apparent from the time he took over, and continued until some time in November. when plaintiff was removed from the position. He was not. the only one who had complained about the condition of the ward. Dr. Moore had even mentioned it to him. The ward and backs were dirty the whole time plaintiff was in charge of them. He went round every morning about 10 o’clock to inspect the wards. Members of the staff had been dismissed for taking drugs. Looking through the drug register, he noticed an abnormally large number of morphia tablets had been destroyed, and he felt certain that drugs had been missing for some time prior to his coming to the hospital, for when the Superiitlenden’s office was being cleaned prior to his taking over, a 31 ounce bottle of cocaine, and a bottle of heroin were found there, “and,’’ he added, “that wasn’t the nurses' fault either." There seemed to be no one in charge of the drug department, as far as he could see. when he took over. Mr Thompson. who, according to Mr Brosnan, was in charge of the dispensary, seemed to witness to be a general rouseabout. If Thompson swore that up io the time he left there was no disappearance of drugs, witness would deny it. A severe mental shuck, such as hearing the news of the. death of a near relative, could possibly affect a person that she would go about her work for a couple of minutes or so after, without knowing what she was doing. If plaintiff had been really seriously assaulted, it was possible that she could have gone about fur the

next couple of minutes without knowing what she was doing. It was quite possible that the nurses holding plain-' tiff to calm her could make the bruise on her right arm, if she were in a state of hysteria and were struggling. Force sufficient to cause such a bruise might possibly cause hysteria. He did not put a hand on her in the office, nor did anything happen there, as far as he knew, to cause the bruises. There were two marks on the door about 3i feet from the ground, too high for boot marks, that appeared to be recent. They were about a quarter of an inch deep. The force, with a heavy object, would not necessarily be considerable. The marks might have been made with the plaintiff’s torch, but the torch on being examined, showed no serious dents. Possibly there were reasons why the nurses would come to Court and make false statement. Nurse Petrie came to his office, and was asked to give a statement, but. she said she would sign nothing for him, as she signed something once and was disrated. As i matter of fact, he had nothing to do with the disrating of the nurse. Nurse Hall was quite honest, in his opinion. He had to put up with a great deal from the staff— a great deal that would not be tolerated in another hospital. Ho wa-s not easily angered.

Re-examined by Mr Thomas defendant said the verbal report was merely as a reminder to look out for anything reported in the book. Mr Thompson was employed in the. dispensary and the x-ray theatre, and was really something of a “medical rouseabout.” The nurses checked over the reports together, the on-coming and the off-go-ing nurse.

To the 5.A.1., det’ciiflant said he had continually complained about the state of Seddon ward, hi’.‘ plaintiff had been kept on. as the Board realised the difficulty of getting jobs, and were naturally reluctant to dismiss anyone. The present senior staff was as good as could he got anywhere, and the hospital was full. The case was adjourned sine 'die at 8.45 p.m.. to be called on at three days’ notice. Mr Thomas intimated that, in all probability, Mr J. A. Murdoch. of Hokitika, would continue the case on defendant’s behalf.