HOSPITAL INQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 June 1937, Page 7

HOSPITAL INQUIRY

CHAIRMAN AND DOCTOR “DON’T BE IMPERTINENT” [PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.] NAPIER, June 21. TEe Royal Commission appointed to investigate the administration of the Napier Public Hospital continued its sittings to-day. The chairman is Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., and associated with him are Sir James Elliott, Wellington, and!. Miss Cecilia McKenny, Pahiatua, formerly matron of :tho Wanganui Hospital. Assisting the commission in its inquiry is Mr N. A. Foden, Crown solicitor, acting on behalf of the DirectoiGeneral of Hospitals. Mr M. R. Grant and Mr W. E. Bate are watching proceedings on behalf of the Hawke s Bay Hospital Board, and other counsel engaged are Mr H. B. Lusk, appealing for Miss L. M. Croft, matron of the Napier Hospital; Mr A. E. La wry, * representing Dr. J. A. Berry, Sister M. A. Wood, and the nurses in training at the institution; and Messrs S. J. Montgomery and C. G. E. Harker, for persons concerned in the Shrimpton sard inquiry, and Mi; R. Rells. Dr. Harold Berry, in evidence, saut he was in partnership with his brother in Napier. He first came to be interested in the special treatment by hot baths when his brother consulted him in the matter. He concurred in the suggestion to conduct the treatment approved of it, in fact. He denied he had visited the hospital on a number of occasions for the purpose of discussing the treatment with the sister. He had certainly discussed it with her on one occasion; but that had been wheti he had been a patient in the hos-

pitul. Mr Foden: Did the sister come to see you iq bed? Witness: No. My brother came to see me while I was in hospital, and asked me if I ran across the sister, to help her if he had not given the sister complete instructions. Your brother asked you to ascertain if proper treatment was being given? —Oh, no, nd. He wanted me to see if I could make any additional safeguards for the sister’s protection. What do you mean by “ran across the sister?”—Oh, “ran across her.” If I met her accidentally at any time. The chairman: Don’t use loose statements. Let’s get this right. Dr. Berry: I was crawling up the corridor. I was in a very weak state. The chairman: Don’t be impertinent. You be carefull, or there will be trouble. • Dr. Berry: If you thought I was impertinent, sir, you were very much mistaken. Mr Mosley: Don’t argue with me. Dr. Berry said that the sister was wrong if she said she discussed the matter several times. Witness and his brother entered the post-mortem room together. He had spoken to Dr. Foley (Medical Superintendent) before the post-mortem examination commenced. If the Coroner ordered a post-mortem, nd other' doctor should be present., . .. There was an element of-risk in tne treatment, he continued, but not so much as in an operation. Dr. Whyte had detailed instructions for one of his patients. He never approved of the heat treatment; There was no justification for saying his patients were neglected. N. J. Ellison, bacteriologist at the hospital, recalled, said that he was at the post-mortem examination in the latter stages. He formed the opinion that the two Berrys were trying to “put something over” Dr. Foley. Witness felt embarrassed and sought permission to retire. Dr. Allan Berry said: “I would sooner youi stayed.” Dr. Foley, recalled, said that he and Dr. Allan Berry conducted the postmortem, the latter saying that he would see the Coroner. He had asked the sister if the child had been examined before the bath treatment. The sister said: “No.” Witness said: “That makes it awkward for you, although death was due to heart failure.” Dr. A. Berry might have expected vulvo-vaginitis to be recorded. His remark about “You’ll be in this, Jim,” was jocular. Witness said he thought Ellison was unduly worrying when he thought that the Berrys were “putting something over.” A. E. Bedford, recalled, said that when he stated he did not hold inquests on hospital cases he referred to other than accident and suicide victims. , , , TT Dr. J. F. Browne, of Auckland Hospital gave expert evidence on the treatment of vulvo-vaginitis. Dr. Browne said he was always on the lookout for new methods which might prove successful. He hoped that in fever therapy a definite cure would be found; but he was not prepared to make a definite statement. Dr. Whyte’s treatment could have been carried out by the nurse in charge.

PATHOLOGIST’S EVIDENCE. Dr. P. P. Lynch, pathologist, of Wellington, detailed possible causes of infection, the one most favoured being unsuspected infection in the hospital. Constant vigilance was the only prevention; mere routine was not sufficient if the disease spread from an unsuspected source. The absence of nursing technique would probably he the cause. It would be difficult for a nurse in a busy ward to wash her hands after taking every temperature. His examination of the victim’s organs did not reveal the cause of death. Having heard the evidence ho was of opinion that he was able to give the cause of death. A temperature of 110 degrees would be a great danger to a child. In his opinion hyperpyrexia was the immediate cause of death. Vulvovaginitis. was a contributory factor. Children did not die from that disease.. It. was desirable that another doctor should have been present at the post-mortem. The first collapse of the child was a danger signal. At the session to-night the commission investigated the erroneous administration to. S. J. Montgomery of the drug known as neohydriol. It was stated that Montgomery had already received £lOOO damages for ill-effects suffered. Evidence describing the administration of the drug before an X-ray examination and of the ill-effects later suffered was given by Samuel James Montgomery. Medical experts and a member of the nursing staff also pave evidence, disclosing that there had been a misunderstanding, and that neohydriol, which was then a fairly new drug, not widely known, had been used instead of abrodil.