NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 24 June 1937, Page 12

NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

HEALTH OF NURSES TREATMENT OF SICK [United Presa Association! NAPIER, 23rd June. The Hospital Commission resumed today with consideration of the treatment of sick nurses. Di-. "AtthUr Gfuchy Clark, acting medical superintendent during Dr. Foley’s absence, stated that he examined another nurse who almost begged him to allow her to return to duty and as a result permitted her to do so. Three weeks later the witness and Dr. Gilray saw her together and it was decided that she should be given a month's holiday and be placed under a medical overhaul.

Dr. T. Gilray said that when he examined the nurse he saw that she was suffering from trouble, wj.th. her ;,tonsils and was nervy, but she said she was all right. She did not want to be put off duty. It was quite possible, that she had scarlet fever and he considered it was time she was relieved of her duties. Mr Grant: “When you examined her did you see any-signs of peeling?”—“l did not see any.”..

“Would you say .that, the girl had scarlet fever?”—“There was a possibility.” !. “So that she might have been infectious and a carrier?”—“Yes.”

“It is possible that she did not have scarlet fever?”—“lt is possible. Throat trouble might produce lassitude after three weeks. It was also possible that the peeling was caused by the throat trouble.”

Sir James Elliott: “When a patient is a nurse in a hospital and eomplams of sore throat it would be a duty cf the medical superintendent to see that it does not spread?”—“lt would be.” Dr. J. J. Foley, medical superintendent, said that he had taken a swab of the girl’s throat and asked if she had a rash, but she said “No.”

“I was worrying about diphtheria, not scarlet fever.” he said. “It was negatived by the results of a bacteriological test.” Mr Foden: “There is a suggestion that it was undiagnosed scarlet fever?”—“lt cannot be detected in the absence > f rash.” 1

“What did you do to check up to see whether or not it was scarlet fever?” — “I regarded it as inflammation of the tonsils." l ' A

“You work on a process of elimination. do you not?”—“Yes. The complaint was a sore throat The important thing was if it was diphtheria not to miss it.”

Mr Bate: “You have no apology tc. make for what you did?”—“No. If the same thing happened again I would take the same course.” “You retained the nurse in the sickroom against her will?” —“Yes.” To Sir James Elliott, Dr. Foley said that unless he saw a rash he would int have been able to diagnose scarlet fever. He added that the isolation period for scarlet fever was now four weeks, but if symptoms were still in evidence the cases were regarded as infectious for a longer period. Previously the period of isolation was six weeks, but a change had been introduced by the Department of Health. At this stage the Commission decided to clear the Court and prohibit publication of the evidence of certain nurses.