HOSPITAL ENTRY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20153, 24 January 1940, Page 11

HOSPITAL ENTRY

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS REFUSAL OF ADMISSION MOTU COMPLAINT SEQUEL 'COMMENT BY MINISTER Provisions of the Statutes Amendment Act, 1939, repealing part of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act, 1926, respecting the right of patients to enter hospitals other than those in their own districts, promise to raise questions of much importance to hospital boards throughout New Zealand.

One case has recently given the Opotiki and Cook Hospital boards a substantial amount of correspondence, and is likely to have further repercussions, since the Minister of Health has given a ruling which appears to place upon the Cook board the obligation of admitting patients from the neighbouring district regardless of urgency or the extent of provision for such cases available in Opotiki.

Late in September members of the family of Mr. H. L. Twisleton, a resident of Motu, became affected by bacillary dysentery and applied for admission to the Cook Hospital. Since the Opotiki Hospital, to which Mr. Twisleton contributed by way of rates, was substantially nearer to the family residence than the Cook Hospital, Mr. Twisleton was recommended to ask for admission there, and did so. The Opotiki Hospital was not able to accept the patients, who in consequence had to be nursed at home, at great inconvenience.

The services of the Cook Hospital Board’s district nurse at Matawai were made available, however, and all the patients recovered satisfactorily, Mr. Twisleton tendering his appreciation of Sister Pritchard’s care. Board’s Reply to Protests The settler, however, felt that his family had received scant consideration from the two hospital boards, and addressed protests to each. The Cook Hospital Board replied pointing out that it had been in no better position to receive the patients than the board controlling their district, and expressed sympathy with • Mr. Twisleton and members of his family. The Opotiki board's explanation was as follows:

"I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 1, lodging a strong protest against what appears to you to be inexplicable actions of the authorities of this board in not admitting members of your family to the institution; and in reply beg to advise that the matter has been placed before the full board, which, after careful consideration of the explanations offered by its officers, decided that no action be taken, but that a letter of sympathy with you and yours, and an explanation to you of the circumstances, be forwarded to you.

"Consequently I beg to make the following explanations, which I sincerely hope will remove any feeling of indignation and protests against apparent inconsiderate and improper actions.

Contact With Health Officer “Our medical superintendent was in close communication with Dr. Davis regarding the position, and Dr. Davis was of the opinion that it is most desirable in cases of this nature to keep them confined to their own district, if possible, as the chances of spreading are exceedingly great. Had the cases been admitted to our institution, both Dr. Davis and our medical superintendent were of opinion that in view of the unavoidable contact with other patients, that the infection of all patients was a distinct possibility. This would be due to the fact that the nursing staff treating the cases would also be attending other patients, as the question of staff has been serious, and it would have been impossible to allot one of the staff solely for treatment of the isolated patients. “The board, however, is in complete sympathy with Mrs. Twistleton and yourself, as there is no doubt that a very strenuous time has been experienced by both, and as a respected citizen who have contributed towards the maintenance of the hospital by payment of the hospital rate, for many years, you no doubt feel as though you have been treated in an abominable fashion. Safeguarding' Health of Many “I feel sure that with this explanation pointing out the reasons for action being to saleguard the health of many others, you will no doubt appreciate the board’s position and try to overcome that feeling of intense dissatisfaction with the local authorities.”

The Motu resident carried the matter a stage further, however, when he placed his complaint before the member for his electorate, Mr. A. G. Hultquist. The latter in turn referred it to the Minister of Health, and the Hon. F. Jones, acting for the Minister of Health, has forwarded a reply through the hands of Mr A. F. Moncur, M.P., who is nursing the Bay* of Plenty interests of Mr. Hultquist west of Gisborne and the East Coast area.

“On the subject of hospital facilities for residents of Motu, I am glad to be able to confirm that the provision of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 192 G, which restricted the admission to Gisborne Hospital of patients from Motu was repeated,” Mr. .Tones writes. The sub-section repealed, he further indicates, is that portion of section 92 which gave a board the right to claim from another board the cost of treatment of “foreign” patients only when the other board had consented to such relief, or where the Minister was satisfied that the relief afforded was urgently required. “No Further Difficulty” Likely "The repeal of the sub-section will, it is anticipated, avoid a recurrence of cases where admission to hospital for necessary treatment has been delayed, owing to a board’s inability to secure the consent of the board of whose district the patient may be a resident,” Mr. Jones adds.

“In general it will facilitate the treatment of patients requiring specialist treatment not available in the hospital of their own district, and should also facilitate the provision of hospital treatment for patients residing in areas from which there is substantia] ly more convenient access to the hospital of a neighbouring district. “It would appear that in view of the repeal, residents of Motu will generally have no further difficulty in securing admission to the nearest hospital, namely that Of Gisborne.”