ST. HELENS HOSPITAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8329, 15 January 1913, Page 8

ST. HELENS HOSPITAL

SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. INQUIRY INTO ADMINISTRATION OF INSTITUTE. Press Association. AUCKLAND, January 14. The Commission of Inquiry to the administration of St. Helens Hospital, Auckland, was commence! at the Arbitration Court this morning, before Mr C. 0. Kettle, SAL, sitting as commissioner.

Complaints were preferred by Mrs Emily Nicol (represented by Dr Bam ford) and by the Auckland Timber Workers’ Union (represented by Mr A. E. Skelton). Mr Selwyn Mays represented the Department of Hospitals, the matron and Dr Tracy Inglis, The Auckland Timber _ Workers’ Union complained (1) that in respect to the death of. Mrs Laura Elizabeth Chamberlain on September 9th ; 1912, Mrs Chamberlain sustained injuries, but that the matron failed to send for or obtain the services of a medical practitioner until the third day after such injuries were sustained. (2) That the matron further failed in her duty to call in medical advice when she discovered that the patient was suffering from puerperal septicaemia.

(3) That the matron, without the assistance of a registered medical practitioner, sutured the torn part of the peiinaeum in some three or four places.

(4) As to Dr Tracy Inglis: In his capacity of medical officer to such institution he declined to allow Hrs-Cham-berlain to be examined or her condition ascertained by another registered medical practitioner when a request for such examination was made by the husband of Mrs Chamberlain at a time when her life was in great danger. (5) As to administration: That the institution, or portion of it. is unsnited for the purpose of a maternity home, by reason that a portion of it is constructed in wood and that the walls are papered, thereby affording opportunities for the fostering of disease and septic germs. (6) That during the confinement of Mrs Chamberlain the matron failed to provide her with the necessary and ordinary comforts and requirements of such case, and that in consequence Mrs Chamberlain sustained unnecessary

pain and suffering. (1) That in case of on© Mrs Porch the patient was placed in an isolation ward immediately after the removal of the body of a woman (Mrs Chamberlain) who had died from septicaemia, and was attended by the same nurse as had attended deceased.

(2) That in the case of one Mrs Marsh the relatives of the patient ly informed that she was suffering from scarlet fever, and further were not notified in sufficient time before the patient’s death to enable them to communicate with her.

(3) That the matron has on several occasions refused to admit i>atients unless at least £1 was paid, and that this practice should be discontinued. (4) That in the case of one Mrs Reid application made for her admission was refused, although her husband is m poor circumstances and lives in a congested area (Freeman’s Bar), and the case was a proper one for admission. The complainant also directed attention to the following points: (1) Need for the appointment of a resident medical officer; (2) the undesirability _of the medical officer being in outside practice as a surgeon; (3 the desirability of appointing a visiting inspector to ascertain the position and means of persons seeking admission to the hospital; (4) the necessity for admitting patients at an earlier stage than they are admitted at the present time; (5) unsuitability of present hospital and desirability of re-establishing it as an adjunct to a general hospital. Evidence was taken in support of the charges, and the inquiry adjourned till to-morrow.