MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITAL

Southland Times, Issue 23229, 18 June 1937, Page 8

MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITAL

Commission Of Inquiry

CHILDREN’S WARD DISEASE CHILD’S DEATH AFTER • BATH (United Press Association) , NAPIER, June 17. When the Royal Commission inquiring into the management of the Napier Hospital resumed its sitting today Mr E. D. Mosely, S.M., announced that, following the conclusion of the evidence by the matron, the public would be admitted and the ban on the publication of names would be removed, except as regards the children concerned in the disease which was the cause of the inquiry, the parents, and the nurses. Dr Foley (medical superintendent) said he did not say the disease was caused by medicine, but he certainly tried to “cushion over” the matter. He did say that medicine could cause irritation. There was a policy of nondisclosure. The child who died was dead when he arrived. The body was naked, and nothing existed to suggest that she had just been brought from a hot bath. Witness told Dr Berry and the nurse that he would let the coroner know. Witness was upset. It seemed another blow for him. A post mortem was held with witness’s knowledge, but not with his consent. His impression was that the child had been flogged with bathing when it should not have been bathed at all. Witness said he described the child s death to the district coroner, whom he left with the impression that death was due to heart failure. Mr Mosely said that if he himself had been aware of the whole facts he would have ordered an inquest. Dr Foley said the death certificate was very incomplete. It was not a true certificate. Had he' known of the special treatment he would have insisted on an inquest. Dr Berry knew j that heart failure was to be given as the cause of death. The post mortem was unauthorized and was carried out by Dr Berry and witness Witness, when asked if there was a conspiracy of silence by Dr Berry and himself, replied: “I don t think Dr Berry told me all he should have. Death was due to hyperpyrexia, or exhaustion. Had he been in full possession of the facte as he now knew them, he would not have issued a death certificate. He unconsciously misled the coroner. Had he known all the facts he would have lived in holy fear of accident. Dr Berry had the last say. Had he known that no permission had been given for the post mortem he would not have been there. The treatment and not the disease was the actuating cause of death. Dr Foley continued by saying that the sister neglected her duty in not reporting the hot bath treatment. It was unwise to introduce an untried system without the approval of the authorities. POST MORTEM OPPOSED The parent of the dead child, recalled, said he desired an inquest to clear the matter up but opposed a post mortem examination. He did not know at that time an examination had been held. Mr A. E. Bedford, a member of the Hospital Board and a coroner said Dr Foley had told him the child had died suddenly at the hospital following a bath and wanted to know if an inquest was necessary. He added: “He said the child had died of acute heart failure and congenital dislocation of the hips.” Dr Berry had not told witness the child had just come from a hot bath. Dr Berry was rather upset but did appear to be opposed to the inquest. This was the first time witness had been approached by a medical man about the inquest. Mr Mosely: Did Dr Berry make any surprising statements? —No Mr Mosely: Then the deduction may be safely left with the Royal Commission. Witness stated that Dr Berry had confirmed Dr Foley’s certificate but had not asked permission to conduct a post mortem. He considered that he should have been told of the hot baths or any special treatment which had been carried out on the child. The chairman added that knowing that Mr Bedford was a member of the board the doctors should have approached the official coroner (Mr J. Miller S.M.). Mr Foden: Their action was not prudent. Mr Mosely: It was more than not prudent. “Of course it is easy to be wise after an event, Mr Bedford, but it would have been prudent for you to have declined to deal with the case,” Mr Mosely added. Mr Bedford: I thought at the time that it was a case of death due to natural causes. Mr Mosely: But you see where all this has led.—Yes, I do now. Matron Croft said that the hospital had a maximum number of patients during the outbreak but the staff had insufficient senior nurses. Junior nurses did not come in contact with isolated patients. She had no knowledge that baths were going to be given. She thought the doctors had conferred on the question. Heat baths should have been recorded. Witness did not know the sister was keeping her own record. That struck witness as extraordinary. The linen caused much concern. The stains were caused by local treatment An effort to remove the stains by a steam sterilizer made them worse and the sheets were then only used on the beds of the children affected. The sheets were clean but not of good colour. The disinfectant had since been altered. The occurrence of lice on children had been reported and checked.