The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1916.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4158, 8 February 1916, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1916.

The Hospital Board, it will be seen, held a some-

A Stormy Meeting of the Hospital Board.

what stormy meeting last night, when

the chief business for consideration was the question as to whether an injustice had been done in connection with the retirement of a member of the nursing staff. It was, it will be agreed, not only a very delicate matter, but also a very important matter, affecting as it did, not only the nurse concerned, but also the matron and her status, and the Board in its administrative capacity. We note that it was suggested during the discussion that the retirement of this particular nurse was voluntary, although some of the members, and particularly Dr. Collins, would not hear of the matter being put in that light. Assuredly there can be no question but that the resignation was enforced, as is shown by the matron’s own report. She says, for instance, that when the first complaint was made she told the nurse affected “that she was prepared to overlook a fault once and once only.” When the next complaint came forward the matron—according to her own report —says “it seemed impossible to avoid 1 making an example of nurse.” Her report continues later: “I said to her: ‘You know that I told you that I would dismiss you, nurse, but I am going to allow you to give me your resignation, etc.’ ” There can, then, be no real dispute as to how it came about that this nurse resigned. But the incident opens up a very wide r question as to how much power should be entrusted to the matron of such an institution. We want to say at this point that wo believe an hospital can have no greater asset than a matron who, whilst firm as regards matters of discipline, is not harsh in her decisions. In this case practically the whole of the members of the Board have expressed the utmost confidence in Miss Tait, the new matron, over her .attitude in the matter. The matron clearly felt that it was in the interests of the institution that this

particular nurse should resign, and, what is more—and this is very important—she took a very wise precaution in consulting the Chairman of the Board before the resignation was accepted. If the step that was taken should ultimately prove to have been too drastic, Mr. Kenway must, in the circumstances, and is willing to do so, share the responsibility with the ma ron. As to the merits of the case under consideration, we do not, ot , course, care to enter into any discußsion. That matter can safely be iett to the Government authorities to go into if they decide to hold an It does seem to us, however, that the Board has not as yet got the best possible system with reference to dealing with grave complaints of alleg misbehaviour on the part of mem ers of the hospital staff. Nobody wo feel, would dream of suggesting that , the dismissal or enforced resignation of a nurse who has not completed her training is not a matter which shou have the utmost consideration. In this particular instance it is unquestionably the position that the matron very kindly offered to allow the nurse to meet the Chairman of the Board. But, on,.the other hand, it is possible—it has not, of course, been ifiade out in so many words that such was the case—that the refusal of the offer may have been due to the fac that the nurse was at the time very much upset. What the Board requires to do in our opinion is to restate the powers which it intends the matron shall possess, and, if it acts wisely, it will, we think, provide that the occupant of that important position shall not he empowered to do more than suspend a member of her staff pending reference of the matter not alone to the Chairman, but to a committee of which he should be chairman. Such a course would enable a committee to hear both sides if a nurse affected wished to he heard and then, if the Inspector-General of Hospitals called for a report, not merely a report by the matron but also a nurse’s own statements and any other evidence that might be taken could, together with the committee’s decision, and, later, the Board’s decision, be sent forward to Wellington. Whilst on this subject we may say that we certainly do not think the matron of a public institution should —as some members think was done, but which is a point that -is very doubtful —have the absolute power of appointment and dismissal. To our way of thinking Mr. Bright hit the nail right on the head when he remarked that the Board should not only not oppose any enquiry but should call for it. As for the future the Board could, however, simplify matters in any similar case by setting up a special committee—if it does not as yet possess such a body—to whom any grave complaint against a member of the staff might be referred. We may add that we feel that the superintendent and the matron could not fail to appreciate the wisdom of sucii a step, and it would also be appreciated by the staff as a whole.