NAPIER HOSPITAL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20762, 24 June 1937, Page 4

NAPIER HOSPITAL

TREATMENT OF SICK NURSES COMMISSION HEARS EVIDENCE By Telegraph—Press Association NAPIER, June 22 Giving evidence about the conditions existing for nurses at the Napier Hospital before the Royal Commission of Inquiry to-night, the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Foley, said that the nurses were not so well off as elsewhere. They had a seven day week. There was no 40-hour week. Although the hours were long the nurses were not worked hard. A serious effort had been made to provide better conditions. Late leave was limited to 11 p.m. for certain girls. Some nurses would not report sick too readily. The Matron, Miss Croft, said the nurses had two tennis courts, a library, sitting room, etc. As soon as ill-health was detected nurses were sent to bed. They were weighed every two months and those missing a meal were noted. The nurses in the Shrimpton Ward were on the regular staff. Mr Foden: So that if a certain disease was present in the ward, the same sister would be nursing her sick companions as well as diseased children?—A nurses’ sick bay would be preferable. Witness said that if the sickness were of a minor nature the patient was expected to tell her own parents, otherwise witness would write to the parents. Nurses worked 58 hours one week and 504 the next week. There was insufficient staff to grant all what the nurses required. Mr Foden requested that if a nurse were called to give evidence there would be no victimisation. Mr Mosley: You need not be afraid of that. The Commission will safeguard them. Some nurses will be called. Continuing the Matron said that extra accommodation was to be provided thus permitting an increase in the staff and one clear day off a week. Nurses had been encouraged to form clubs etc. for recreation. One pint of milk a day was allowed for each nurse. Her reports to the board were addressed to the managing secretary. Sir James Elliott: And the Medical Superintendent is ignored?—No, we discuss it and nothing I send to the board Is objected to by him. Some nurses, continued witness, went six weeks with only one day off, but the best was done with the available staff. The mother of a nurse complained that her daughter did not receive proper treatment during the time she was ill. If that was possible, she asked, how would a patient fare? A Fatal Illness The Commissioner of Crown Lands, 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, c.nd Sst 121 b when she joined the staff. She had worked for periods of weeks on end without a day off, and the lost leave was made up later. 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 massage was prescribed. This benefltted her considerably, but she began to lose weight, and at the time of her second illness in October, she weighed only Sst. The girl’s mother had urged her to report sick, but she had 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 Novembei- 5. The girl suffered from severe headaches, which the doctor atending her, Dr Armstrong, could do nothing to relieve, and also nervous convulsion. Dr Armstrong advised witness to convey the girl to hospital, expressing the opinion that she was not convalescent, but was still suffering from the original infection. When the girl arrived at 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-Medica] 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 the nurses should work for such long periods without leave. A Mother’s Concern Dr Arthur Gruchy Clark, actingMedlcal Superintendent, during Dr Foley’s absence, stated, in evidence that he had examined another nurse, who had almost begged him to allow her to return to duty, and as a result he had permitted her to do so. Three weeks later witness and Dr Gllray 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 sign of having scarlet fever, you would have seen her?' Dr Clark: Oh. yes. Why did you decide to grant her a month's leave?—She was run down and I am afraid I was rather influenced by the concern of her mother, who was unduly worried about her. 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 times did you see 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 a throat to show that the 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?—l do not think so. Had she had scarlet fever, it would have been noticeable, but if she was not seen would it be strange for a lay person with a logical mind to say that the girl was run down and contracted the sore throat, and being ill in bed for some time?—No certainly not. It seems 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. Throat Trouble When he examined the nurse, said Dr T. Gilray, he saw that 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 duties. Mr Grant: When you examined her, did you see any signs of peeling?—l 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 not have scarlet fever? —It is possible. The throat trouble might produce lassitude after three weeks. It was also possible that peeling was caused by throat trouble. Sir James Elliott: When a patient is a nurse in hospital, and complains of a sore throat, it would be the duty of the medical superintendent to see 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? —lt can not be detected in the absence of a rash. What did you do to check up to sec whether or not it was scarlet fever?— I regarded it as inflammation of the tonsils. You work on a process of elimination don't you?—Yes, the complaint was a sore throat. The important thing was if it was diphtheria not to miss it. Mr Bate: You have no apology to make for what you did? Dr Foley: 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 unless he saw a rash he would not have been able to diagnose scarlet fever. He added that the isolation period for scarlet fever was now four weeks, but if symptoms were still in evidence, 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.

Here the Commission decided to clear the Court and prohibit the publication of the evidence of certain nurses.