MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITAL

Southland Times, Issue 23228, 17 June 1937, Page 6

MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITAL

COMMISSION OF , INQUIRY

FURTHER EVIDENCE

HEARD (United Press Association) NAPIER, June 16. The Royal Commission inquiring into the management of the Napier Hospital continued its sitting today. The nurse in the ward where the disease broke out said it was a likely suggestion that remissness occurred in discovering the disease. The highest temperature of the bath was 116 deg in her presence, but she had heard of it reaching 120. Witness was instructed not to inform the parents of the nature of the disease. The medical superintendent was present once when the children were being bathed. Witness was worried because the sister was bathing the children without orders. The matron when requested to supply a special nurse may not have known of the bathing. Witness admitted being concerned in a more or less irregular practice. The mother of one child said she was told that children of the same age were put in the same room for company. This was in reply to a question why were the children isolated. She was told her child had a certain disease in infantile form.

A second mother said she was told the infection was caused by a certain medicine. Dr Berry told her that they would not kill her daughter. Witness said her daughter was clean when admitted, but was later covered with lice. The bedclothes were dirty. A third mother alleged that when she complained about her child getting the disease, she was told she should get her husband’s blood tested. A fourth mother said she was told the rumour was “utter rot.” After the child had been discharged she screamed every time she was taken near a bath. A father giving evidence said he had heard for the first time in court today that his child had the disease. A nurse said the sheets were discloured by disinfectents. Another nurse said the bath had to be maintained at 110 degrees. The bed linen was not always what it should be because of the stains of disinfectants. A further nurse said the first collapse alarmed her. She thought it created an emergency and informed the sister in charge. The child’s pulse was weak and rapid. Her instructions were to bath the children at 114 degrees. The treatment of the collapsed child continued after collapse. Joseph James Foley, medical superintendent of the hospital for three years, said he could not say how the disease broke out. It may have been brought in undetected in an affected child. , It was not likely that the disease was introduced by a visitor or one of the staff. Precautionary measures were taken promptly. There was no need to become panicky about the appearances of a disease in any hospital, but a serious view had been taken. If a nurse was in difficulty, her duty was to report to the matron. He was satisfied everything possible had been done to check the outbreak. The request for a special nurse was turned down because it would not provide a full time job. There was a danger in allowing an attending nurse to work in the children’s ward. The same nurse may have failed in technique. One nurse was said to be unsatisfactory and instructions were given to “bump” her, but the matron held this might be construed that she was responsible. Witness did not know that the child had had heat treatment until some weeks after death. Witness only went into the room to close a fanlight and stop the noise entering the passage. He did not go near the child in the bath, although he saw it. Apparently the treatment went beyond the doctor’s orders. Except in Doctor Berry’s case witness admitted he had denied to parents that the children had the disease.