ALLEGED DELAY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19986, 19 December 1934, Page 11

ALLEGED DELAY

ADMISSION OF A PATIENT

CASE FOR THE HOSPITAL

Some discussion was occasioned at the monthly meeting of the South Canterbury Hospital Board yesterday following the reading of a letter from the Timaru-St.Andrews branch of the Farmers’ Union asking if the chairman or a member of the Board would attend the next meeting and give members first-hand information regarding the proposed loan and expenditure on hospital buildings. Mr H. J. Clark said he did not think the Board should send a deputation to the Union, but if it desired any information then the Board would be pleased to receive a deputation. He thought that the Board table was the place to discuss such matters. Mr G. Dash referred to the recent discussion by the Timaru-St. Andrews branch of the Farmers’ Union regarding alleged delay in the admission of an accident victim to the hospital, and said that members of local bodies and other organisations were remiss in their duty If they did not bring such matters before the Board, for that was the place for them. It was no use six months later to complain at large at Farmers’ Union meetings, or Borough Council or any other meetings. They, as administrators of the hospital, could not know of everything that was going on, and it was the duty of every citizen and every local body to bring anything that would assist the Board to'the Board table. He was sure the medical superintendent would welcome such action more than random talk at meetings of small bodies. The chairman (Mr E. Macdonald) said that he had intended to refer to the matter, though it was not mentioned in the letter from the TimaruSt. Andrews branch of the Farmers’ Union. A charge had been brought against the hospital at a small meeting, and a rather alarming report had appeared in the newspapers. As usual, however, there was not very much in it. He did not know whether they should ask for a definite charge to be formulated, or whether Dr. McKenzie would care to state his side of the case.

Superintendent’s Explanation Dr. McKenzie said that he was glad Mr Dash had spoken as he had, for the method which had been adopted of airing a grievance had been a very unjust one. He did not know the nature of Mr J. Stowell’s grievance, but the thing that mattered was the report which went out to the public that there had been improper delay in the admission of an injured man to the hospital. The administration of the hospital had nothing to fear from the fullest inquiry into the case. The facts were that about 3 o’clock one morning two injured men were brought to the hospital in a private car. One of the house surgeons came down in his dressing gown and examined the men, one of whom was badly injured, and it was really impossible to move him in the state that he was. Dr. McKenzie said that he hesitated to criticise a neighbourly action in bringing a man into hospital, but the proper course would have been to have brought him in in the ambulance. An injured man’s chances would be much better if he was left where he was until it was possible to handle him skilfully. In this case the man was so knocked about that the doctor decided to give him some morphia, and leave him for a while. He went back later, and as he was still in a bad condition, gave him an anaesthetic before he was moved. That may have been the delay that was spoken of. It was not a negligent delay, but a deliberate delay. that was the difference between a trained judgment and that of a layman.

Dr. McKenzie went on to say that the question of delay in admitting patients to hospital was a perennial one. When an accident occurred, people wished to do everything to help, and their idea was to rush an injured person to hospital, but from the point of view of the hospital this was not always everything. At 3 o’clock in the morning, it took an appreciable time to get the wheels moving. There was only one nufse in the ward, and she would have to go for a doctor, after first summoning a night sister, because it was a regulation that no ward was to be left unattended. This would take some minutes, and to some people would no doubt seem a very long time. Dr. McKenzie said that he was sure that no charge of negligent delay could be substantiated. In fairness to the staff, it was only right to ask a person who made an outburst to be a little more specific in his statements. The chairman (Mr E. Macdonald) moved that a reply be sent stating that the Board would be pleased to receive any deputation the branch liked to send, and further, in regard to the charge made by Mr Stowell, the Board desired that he should make a definite charge of neglect in the case he had instanced. The motion was seconded by Mr R. W. Simpson and carried unanimously.