AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

Mataura Ensign, 15 May 1912, Page 6

AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

Pro3?.ESS OF THE INQUIRY. T-ii'] MAT'iVi DEFENCE. , I'ER UNITED I'UivSS ASSOCIATION. j AUCKLAND, May 14. The special inquiry regarding the ad- ' ministrative and disclipinary methods of the lady superintendent of the Auckland Hospital was continued to-day by i the Hospital Board. The remainder of ! the < barges i'ornuilatrd by the Medical I Commit toe was received and the Board then divided to defer its deliberations until ce;lies <:1 the official report of evidence had boon supplied to members. The pr'.r-'cdiiigs closed vriih the negativing. by the casting vote of the- chairman, of a motion that the matron should be smr-pended until the Board made its finding. Dr Pabst stated that he told Mr Potter that the matron was unsatisfactory in every way and this was denied by Mr Potter who, in a personal explanation, said that it would appear t.haet he had flatly contradicted this statement; but his reply applied only to the end of December. Dr Pabst! said that before that date ho reported | his dissatisfaction with the matron to j Mr Coylc, and. unofficially, to the chairman of the Board. | After several charges had been dealt l with Dr J. Hardie Neil made an ex- I plan at ion concerning Miss Griffiths' statement that ho had objected to the j appointment of n certain nurse in j charge of a ward. Dr Neil said that j the statement was contrary to fact, as ( he had made no statement capable of the personal interpretation attributed to him by Miss Griffiths. Mies Griffiths replied that Dr Neil ; interviewed her in. her office and said that he objected to the sister because of fi11 serial disability. Dr Xe : !: I leave never been ill your ; private "ffio. 35ts Griffiths: On two occasions you cme in'o m.v office. D- Neil: T am sorry you are not tellie<r f'o I"iv!h. Mo»ib"TS onosMnnod Dr Noil regO'-d- ---. ing the fo'-mubtion of the '."barges and he said that they were made by Dr Pabst p.fter an explanation of the honorary staff. Undoubtedly Dr Pabst had the confidence of the honorary staff. Dr Pabst said that at a regular nveet- . ing of the honorary staff at which there . was a quorum present it was unani- , moil sly agreed that the charges should j be made. No objection had been made to this course by any member of the staff who was not present at the meeting. Later in the proceedings Mr Rutherford questioned Dr Pabst's statement •as to the number of doctors who wo t o present when the charges were finally formulated. Dr Pabst said that the whole of the charges were explained in a general way to a meeting of the Medical Committee at which eight doctors were present (Drs Pabst. Coldicutt, ■ Dudley, Hardie Neil, Gore-Gillon, [ Sweet, Roberton and Inglis). After- ! wards the charges were stated in writing and submitted to a meeting. ' The statement- that the matron had ' accused Sister Rudd of telling lies, ' which was made on the previous day, was mentioned by Mr Coyle. He ask- ■ M iss Griffiths; to reply to his question • whether she had ever used the word ' "lie" in connection with her duties. 5 Miss Griiffiths: "I deny it." The 1 hearing of evidence in support of the charges having been concluded the matron said she wished to call eerteain evidence but she had not acquainted ' the witnesses with her intention of call- • ing them. After considerable discussion Miss Griffiths said that she had I no desire to prolong the inquiry and '■> would not call any witnesses. The matron addressed the Board. J Reviewing the complaints in order, she - submitted that the charge that she had f been dilatory in commencing her duties - had been disproved, and if necessary, 5 she could bring evidence that would prove conclusively that her hours of duty commenced! at a very early hour compared with those of the other officials. With regard to the instances of alleged insolence, Miss Griffiths re--5 marked that the by-laws fixted the 3 position of the chairman of the Medical 1 Committee as certainly not superior to J | her own. She asked the Board to accept her assurance that the words described as satirical were in reality an appreciation of Dr Pabst's inquiry regarding the Nurses' Home. The Board had accepted her report regarding her protest against her time being wasted, and, therefore, rebutting evidence ? | was not required. The Board again 1 , had her assurance that no insolence | was intendod by the innocent remark 3 ! she had made regarding the lavatories and bathrooms. Miss Griffiths submitted that there was no ground for the charges of untruthfulness. The evidence clearly showed that when she required direction she had appealed to the senior resident medical officer; but, being conversant with the duties of her office, such appeals had been rare, j Regarding the appointment of Sister Rudd to the position of home sister, | Miss Griffiths said that she had a letter from Sister Rudd showing that she did not regard her occupancy of the position as permanent, and further she j informed Sister Rudd orally that it was only temporary. Upon the charge

that she had left a ward without a competent nurse, she sakl 1 that aut.ioi'fcy for the sister to liave leave hr 1 been given. A ivell-trained nurse w s transferred t;> the ward, and no exception had been taken to her on grounds oi.ier than her ability as a nurse, and iMii'se A/uiler was a>)] minted to Uie position, fslie thought* that the Hoard would agree that suflicit lit prov ion was made lor the proper sir s rvisio.i of the ward. It had been .sufliei., a approved that it was not a eiuinvoman who had been in charge of scarlet fever cases, but a wardsmaid who had suili'jieiiu experience of the place to know where to obtain assistance. As the cases were just about ready for discharge, they could, had they been adults, almost have been left alone. Her reason for transferring the erysipelas case from one ward to another was because tins case was admitted into an infected ward, and would, in all probabalit.v have contracted the disease, perhaps with fatal results. In the circumstances she considered her action was justified. She directed attention to statements of Dr Hardie Neil, a member of the honorary staff, that she had discussed with him the admission of Nurse Hay to Ward 7. | Miss (Griffiths'submitted that she had I disproved the charge that she had plac- ■ ed a probationer in charge of a serious ( contagious case. The probationer was | not in charge. She added that there i was no authority for the chairman of I the medical staff to reprimand her. Referring to the general charge of want jof method and neglect of the instruc- | tions from the chairman of the ivledijcal Committee, she again emphaised | the fact that she regarded herself as the servant of the Hoard. She had | made, an effort to carry out the wishes I jof Dr Pabst and to work in harn\';:>Y 1 : with him ; but his wishes were so exacting that they clashed with the diHirfor which she was :?aid. j\liss Griffiths remarked that the position had bee. most difficult one. Dr Pabst then proceeded to review the case against the matron. He said that the charges were of insolence, untruthfulness, and provocation, incom petenev and inexperience. und ; added that the matron had not carried out her duties with the personal administration and industry which the Medical Committee had a right to expect. The Board then proceeded to deal with the protest by five sisters ag:-.mst their suspension over the "bath incident," and the declaration by 2o sisters and l nurses that they could not continue their duties under the management of the present lady superintendent. Two letters were read, and also another one addressed to the chairman of the Board. This letter was as follows: — "We the undersigned sisters, representing the senior nursing staff of the hospital, regret that we feel we cannot submit our case to the Board. We respectfully beg that the inquiry into our case should be submitted to an outside authority, either to the Inspector-General of Hospitals or a stipendary magistrate." This was signed by Sisters L. T ongman, A. L. Jackson, A. Rud : d, a:i IA. Sutherland. It was decided that the inquiry should be postponed until seven o'clock to-morrow evening.