THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3036, 22 May 1912, Page 34

THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL.

CHARGES AGAINST THE MATRON

DISPLAY OF STRONG FEELING

MATRON RESIGNS. AUCKLAND, May 13. The inquiry into the charges preferred against the matron of the Auckland Hospital (Miss Griffiths) by the Medical Committee of the Board (of which Dr Pabst is chairman) was opened this monning. lhe following members of the board were present : —Alegars H. Schofield (chairman), 1. M. Mac Kay, F. J. H. Ellisdon, J. Jenkins, M. J. Covle, P. J. Ncrheny, J. H. Potter, J. S. Dickson, J. G. Rutherford, and F. Dye. Dr Pabst and Miss Griffiths were also present. The Chairman said that it was a continuance of the inquiry which was opened pome five or six weeks ago into £ ertaln statements made before the board by the chairman of the honorary staff (Dr Pabst) against the ladv superintendent. One meeting was held, and the only clause dealt with was No. 1, which referred to the hour at which the matron commenced duty. Mr Schofield said he proposed to begin with clause 2 (containing an allegation of impertinence and insolence to her superiors). , Considerable heat was shown during a, discussion which followed, and although at one stage it seemed that a definite start with the subject of complaints had been indefinitely postponed, a beginning was at last made with complaint No. 2, which alleged insolence on the part of the matron towards her superiors. The point in dispute was trivial enough. Dr Pabst contended that by-law 135 made the lady superintendent responsible to the- Medical Committee for the efficiency of the nursing staff, but Miss Griffiths argued that the board was the "superior officer" to which she had to look for instructions. Evidence was given by Dr Maguire and Sister Rudd. Nurse Rudd's only relevant evidence concerned her appointment by the matron as temporary home srister. Incidentally, she mentioned that since February 22 17 maids had left the home, and slit* 'stated that she had had a most unhappy time. A paseage-at-arms followed between Mr Nerhenv and Dr Pabst, the former accusing the doctor of " having left hia conscience in Sydney." . ~ Sister Rudd, in explaining an incident in connection with the broaching of a lock, ■a'.d that she had gone to the matron and jwked for linen and stated that it was urgently required. The matron had thereupon accused her of telling lies. Miss Griffiths denied this accusation. Nurse Williams, when called, stated that on Easter Monday, while playing her banjo in her room, she hoard the matron declare to someone on the floor, in a loud voice, "It's a lie."

Tho Matron indicated that she would prefer to reply to this and other points of evidence at a later stage. The board then proceeded to investigate the complaint that on February 21 th* matron replied to the chairman of the Medical Committee that it was wasting hei time to ask her such questions. Dr Pabst remarked that the matron's reply virtually made no reference to the actual complaint of insolence and impertinence. This complaint arose from the incident of the admission of Nurse Hay tc Ward 7.

Miss Griffiths explained that after having given an explanation on two occasions she yas asked for a written report. She spent much valuable time in drafting a report, but when she personally submitted it Dr Pabst refused to receive it. Miss Griffiths considered that Dr Pabst was obviously desirous of wasting her time. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the rejection of the report, in the course of which Miss Griffiths admitted that she had asked Dr Pabst to coilvey all his instructions to her in writing. Several other charges were dealt with today, the last one being that, on January 8, the lady superintendent placed a charwoman in charge of two cases in the scarlet fever ward. Her defence was that the woman was a wardsmaid, that the cases were convalescent, and that the maid could easily telj phone for assistance if necessary. Some lively passages at arms occurred bofore the inquiry was adjourned till next day. The board then proceeded to deal with a protest by five sisters against their suspension over the " bath incident" and th-j declaration by 25 sisters and nurses lhat they could not continue their duties under . the management of the present lady superintendent. The two letters (which have already been published) 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. Wo respectively beg that the inquiry into our case should be Bubmitted to an outside authority—either the Inspector-general of Hospitals or a stipendiary magistrate." This was signed by Sisters L. Longman, A. L. Jackson, * A. Rudd, and A. Sutherland. May 14. The special inquiry regarding the administration and disciplinary methods of the Jfdy superintendent of the Auckland Hospital was continued by the Hospital Board to-day. The remainder of the charges formulated by the Medical Committee were reviewed, and the board then decided to defer its deliberations until copies of tho official report of the evidence had been supplied to members. The proceedings closed with the defeat, on the casting vote of the chairman, of a motion that the matron should be suspended until tho board made its finding. All the members were present. During the previous day's proceedings Dr Pabst stated that he told Mr Potter that the matron was unsatisfactory in every way, and this wa3 denied by the member. Mr Potter, in a porsonal explanation, said it would appear that he had flatly contradicted this statement, but his reply applied only to tho ond of December. Dr Pabst said that, before that date, he reported his dissatisfaction with the matron to Mr Coyle and unofficially to the chairman of the board. He did not remember on what date he first mentioned the matter to Mr Potter, but ho did so more than once. After several charges had been dealt with Dr J. Hardie Neil made an explanation concerning Miss Grimths's statement that be had objected to the appointment of a certain nurse in charge of a ward. Dr Neil ■aid the statement was contrary to fact, as

he had made no statement capable of the personal interpretation attributed to him by Miss Griffiths. Miss Griffiths replied that Dr Neil interviewed her in her office and said he objected to the sister because of a certain social disability. Dr Neil: I have never been in your private office. Miss Griffiths: On two occasions you came into .my office. Dr Neil: f am sorry you are not telling the truth. Members questioned Dr Neil regarding the formulation of the charges, and he said that they were made by Dr Pabst after a general explanation to the honorary staff. Undoubtedly Dr Pabst had the confidence of the honorary staff. A statement that the matron had accused Sister Rudd of telling lies, which was made on the previous day, was mentioned by Mr Coyle. Ho asked Miss Griffiths to reply to his question whether she had ever used the word ' lie" in connection with her duites. Miss Griffiths: I deny it. The matron then addressed the board, reviewing the complaints in the order she submitted them. The charge that she had been dilatory in commencing her duties had been disproved, and, if necessary, she could bring evidence that would prove conclusively that her hours of duty commenced at a very early hour compared with those of other officials. With regard to the instances of alleged insolence, Miss Griffiths remarked that the by-laws fixed the position of the chairman of the Medical Committee as certainly not superior to 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 had her assurance that no insolence was intended by the innocent remark she made regarding 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. 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 informed Sister Rudd orally that it was only temporary. Upon the charge that she had left a ward without a competent nurse, she said that authority for the sister to have leave had been given. A well trained nurse was transferred to the ward, and, on exception being taken to her on grounds other than her ability as a nurse, Nurse Midler was appointed to tho position. She thought the board would agree that sufficient provision was made for the proper supervision of the waid. It had been sufficently proved that it was not a charwoman in the charge of scarlet fever cases, but a wardsmaid, who had sufficient 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 the case was admitted into an affected ward, and would in all probability have contracted the disease, perhaps with fatal results. In tho circumstances she considered her action was justified. She directed attention to statements by 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 disproved the charge that she had placed a probationer in charge of a serious contagious, case. The probationer was not in charge. She added that there was no authority for the chairman of the medical staff to repri mand her. Referring to the general charge of want of method and neglect of the instructions from the chairman of the Medical Committee, 6he again emphasised the fact that she 'regarded herself as the scr vant of the board. She had made an effort to carry out the wishes OI Dr Pabst, and to work in harmony, with him, but his wishes were so exacting that they clashed with the duties for which she was paid. Miss Griffiths remarked that her position had been a most difficult one. Dr Pabst then proceeded to review the case against the matron. He said that the charges were those of insolence, untruthfulness, provocation, incompetency, and inexperience. He 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. It wa s agreed that the board should not proceed to deliberate until the official rcoort of tho evidence was available, and /hat it should meet to prepare its findings two days after copies of the evidence were issued to members. There was a protracted discussion on a proposal by Mr Coyle that the matron should be suspended until the board had adjudicated upon the charges against her, and that in the meantime tho assistant lady superintendent should assume the duties. The motion was seconded by Mr Mac Kay, and the voting was as follows: —For the; motion —Messrs Coyle, Mac Kay, Jenkin, Ellison, and Dye; against the motionMessrs Schofield, Rutherford, Dickson, Potter, and Ncrheny. The Chairman gave his casting vote against the motion, and tleclared it lost. May 15. The inquiry at tho public hospital concerning the matron's relations with the medical and nursing staffs and the charges brought against her by the medical staff was resumed to-night. The lady superintendent (Miss Griffiths) was present, and stated that before the inquiry proceeded she wished to submit a statement to tho board. When she arrived last July there were only 20 trained nurses in the hospital, this providing for one fully-trained nurse for each ward. At the present time there were 16 other fully-trained nurses who had obtained their certificates since her arrival, which showed their satisfaction with th© present conditions. When she arrived there were 38 first-year nurses, so that she had an inexperienced staff to deal with. The efficiency of the staff was nevertheless proved by the excellent results obtained at the recent State examinations. Tho nurses' diet had been much improved. It was faulty and insufficien't when she arrived, and she at once drew up a generpus diet scale, and the result had greatly reduced the amount of sickness among tho nursos. She also attended to other matters, involving a great amount of work. If it were possible to oonvev to the board an idea of the enormous labour

entailed by the eight hours' system, it would perhaps have some understanding of the multifarious duties she had had to perform. She had worked against definite antagonism from the first. Every obstacle and every difficulty that could be placed in her way had been put there. After 11 months of strenuous and conscientious work in the interests of the institution she felt that, owing to the active and uncompromising .antifcude of Dr Pabst during that period and his behaviour towards her at the inquiry on the previous day, she could no longer retain her present position with dignity. She therefore placed her resignation in the hands of the board. She took this step with regret, having spent years with an honourable and unbroken record in the nursing profession. She gave three months notice, and added that a month's holiday was due to her. The past fewdays had imposed a great strain on her health, and she asked to be relieved of her duties at the end of the month. The matron, who was in much distress, then left the room. When she had finished reading the statement, the Chairman said that the position was an awkward one just now because an examination of the junior nurses was in progress. That was one of tho reasons why he had objected to the suspension of the matron, lest the juniors might prevented from taking their examinations. The statements made by the matron were just what he had thought all along. He had watched her work carefully, and had known the extreme difficulties with which she had had to contend, not only in getting on with some of tho staff, but with the work as well. He was satisfied that she had never in anv wav neglected any of the patients. _ It now rested with tho board to decide what should be done. Mr Potter urged that the inquiry should be continued. Mr Coyle moved that the resignation should be accepted, that the lady superintendent should receive three months' salary in lieu of notice, and another month's salary in consideration of the holiday due to her. Mr Potter objected, on a point of order, that the resignation had not been put in in writing. It should be received by thesecretary and read at the next meeting of the board. Mr Dye seconded the motion. Tho Chairman said it would be unjust to the matron to delay the matter any more. She wished it to be accepted. Tho motion to receive the resignation was carried, and it was further decided that it should take effect from the end of the month. The question c f replacing her temporarily was left in the hands of the chairman of the board, the chairman of the honorary staff (Dr Pabst), and Mr P. J. Noreheny. Tho Chairman: Is it desirable to go on with tho inquiry? Mr Potter: Yes; it is an important matter. We have had damage done to tho Nurses' Home, and that must be investigated. Mr Dye: I move that we do not. Mr Coyle moved that the special committee set up to replace the matron should consider whether the inquiry should bo continued and report to the next meeting- of the board. After a lengthy debate this motion was carried by 5 votes to 4.