NAPIER HOSPITAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23225, 24 June 1937, Page 7

NAPIER HOSPITAL

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SICKNESS OF NURSES QUESTION OF TREATMENT (Pee United Press Association j NAPIER, June 23. The hospital inquiry resumed consideration of the treatment of sick nurses this morning. The commissioner of Crown lands at Napier. Mr F. R. Burnley, father of a pupil nurse at the hospital, who contracted a fatal illness at the end of last year while a member of the hospital staff, was the first witness. Mr Burnley said that his daughter died on November 16 last after completing two years’ service The girl was of an athletic type and weighed 9st 121 b when she joined the staff. She had worked periods of weeks on end with a day'off and lost leave was made up later. When she took her periods of leave, however, she usually spent the first day or two in bed in order to recuperate. She took ill after 18 months and her trouble, a severe pain in the back, was diagnosed as muscle trouble, and electrical treatment was prescribed. This benefited her considerably, but she began to lose weight and at the time of her second illness, in October, she weighed only 8.0. The girl’s mother had urged her to report sick, but she declined to do so, fearing that if she did another nurse would have to do “double duty,” or another nurse on leave would have to be recalled. The girl was forced to report sick on the occasion of her illness in October, and when her condition improved sufficiently she was taken by her mother, with the approval of the hospital matron (Miss Croft), on a holiday visit to Taupo. The girl again took ill and witness was summoned to Taupo on November 5. The girl suffered severe headaches which the doctor attending her (Dr Armstrong) could do nothing to relieve, also nervous convulsion. Dr Armstrong advised witness to convey the girl to the hospital, expressing the opinion that she was not convalescent but was still suffering from the original infection. When the girl arrived at the hospital her trouble was found to be tubercular meningitis, and witness was informed that there was no hope for her. She died on the morning of November 16. “ I cannot speak too highly of the care and attention given my daughter by the acting medical superintendent (Dr A. G. Clark), the acting matron, the doctors, and the nursing staff,” Mr Burnley said. He added that he had given evidence only for one purpose namely, in the interests of the nursing staff. He did not think it right that nurses should work such long periods without leave. Dr Arthur Gruchy Clark, acting medical superintendent during Dr Foley's absence, stated in evidence that he had examined another nurse who had almost begged him to gllow her to return to duty, and as a result he had permitted her to do so. Three weeks later witness and Dr Gilray had seen her together, and it had been decided that she should be given a month's holiday and placed under a medical overhaul. Mr Bate: If she had shown any signs of having scarlet fever you would have seen her? Dr Clark; Oh, yes. Why did you; decide to grant her a month’s leave?4-She was run down, and 1 am afraid I was rather influenced fay the concern of her mother, who was unduly worried about hei. Sir James Elliott: There is ' some question if the nurse was fit to take on nursing in Napier.. Was she perfectly normal on August 28?—Presumably so. How many limes did you sec her? — Medically, twice. I saw her once to see if she was fit for duty.

The bacteriological examination of the throat would show scarlet fever? — Not very often.

I put it to you that there is no way of testing the throat to show that a patient has scarlet fever?—No. She worked among infectious diseases? —Yes. She comes back ill with a sore throat, and in the incubation period after scarlet fever. Have you any hesitation in saying with these facts that she had scarlet fever? —I do not think so. Had she had scarlet fever it would have been noticeable. But if she was not seen it would not have been. Would it be strange for a lay person with a logical mind to say that the girl was run down and had contracted the sore throat, being ill in bed for some time?—No, certainly not.

It seems that the girl was in bed for 18 days?—Yes. After being up three days she went back to her duties. Was that not taking a risk with her health? —Yes. It would have been advisable to have given her a week’s holiday. Would she have been a menace to the nurses’ home if she had scarlet fever?—Yes. When he examined the nurse, Dr T. Gilray said, he saw thr.t she was suffering from trouble with 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?—! 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 ilot have scarlet fever?—lt is possible. Throat trouble might prqduce lassitude after three weeks and it was also possible that the feeling was caused by the throat trouble.

Sir James Elliott: When the patient is a nurse hi hospital and complains of sore throat it would be the duty of 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 the bacteriological test.”

Mr Foden: There is a suggestion that it was undiagnosed scarlet fever? —It cannot be detected in the absence of rash.

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

You work on the process of elimination. don’t you?—Yes The complaint was a sore throat. The important thing was that if it was diphtheria not to miss it. Mr Bate: You have no apology to make for what you did?—No If the same thing happened again I would take the same course. You retained the nurse in the sick room against her will?—Yes. To Sir James Elliott, Dr Foley said that unless he saw a rash he would not have been able to diagnose scarlet fever. Ho 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 had been six weeks, but a change had been introduced by the Department of Health. At this stage the commission decided to clear the court and to prohibit publication of the evidence of certain nurses.