THE JUBILEE HOME CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7013, 31 January 1901, Page 1

THE JUBILEE HOME CASE.

— - — -♦- ' ■ ■ ■ f THE MATTER BEFORE THE J • ■ HOSPITAL BOARD. DR^CROOKE'S EXPLANATION. At the Hospital BoAd#meeting yesterday afternoon the JubUee Home case came up for discussion. " «, The Chairman said he considered the answer to the charges made against tbe ' Hospital was that 4 the patient should have been sen* to the institution at once. »ne ' woi>H have been immediately- received and ; promptly, attended to, .but she had been , k#pfc o-d. at ike Home, and no protest was ' : , made until after her death. . .' ; Thte Charitable Aid. Board wrote «n- - closing a doftr- of Dr -Clayton's letter (already published) stating that he had found -' great 'diffioulty to obtaining admission for his patients to "the hospital', and, referring in particular to tie cas| of Mrs Loader. - The following letter*- from Dr Crooke ws then read^TShe Hospital, Chrast- • church, Jan. 23, 1901. The Chamnan Nortfh Canterbury Hospital Board^ bir,— In reply to -Mr Norrjs's letter of Jan. 19, : requesting an explanation as to the reason . 3 not admitting -to the hospital for treatment the late' Mrs Loader, of the Jubilee Home, I may perhaps be pardoned for ■ suggesting whether the Charitable Aid i authorities should not be asked to ex- = plain why the unfortunate woman was not conveyed to the hospital in the ambulance on the occurrence of the as far as Slospital is concerned, «• I, can discover where the admission of an accident has been even questioned, as fracture beds are always kept in readiness. The usual experience is that when an accident has occurred the hospital as telephoned that the case is on its way. Now as to the facts of this case: Firstly, it ■was an accident, and urgent, according to Dr Clayton, and yet he leaves it without being seen from Wednesday to Saturday. Secondly, the matron, when telephoning the 'hospital, does not represent the cose as urgent, and when I telephoned her on the Monday she did not wish to bring tae case that day.. Thirdly, in spite of tae urgency, neither Dr Clayton nor the matron telephoned the hospital again, although I admitted having forgotten to telephone them, owing to pressure of work both on the Sunday and Tuesday, and Dr Clayton visited the hospital on Tuesday and 1 made no effort to see me on the subject. Mi's Loader was a patient 'here last year, and was then a very feeble old woman, highly nervous and excitable. It is doubtful whether she would have borne an ansesthetic or even the journey to the hospital. In conclusion, regarding Dr Clayton's statement tfliat his cases are not admitted here, I deny it absolutely, as no acute, jirgent or otherwise suitable case has ever been refused admission since I have been house surgeon, and as regards the admission of chronic cases, I have stretched the hospital by-laws to the utmost.—l am, etc., T. S. Orooke, House Surgeon. Mr Loughnan asked if Dr Crooke had been informed it was an urgent case. Dr Crooke, who was present, replied that he had not received, such information. A statement was made that the woman would/ be sent for examination under ether. No information had been sent to the effect that it was an urgent case. Mr M'Haffie said the hospital authorities were not supposed to send for cases. The case should have been sent to the hospital and then it would have been received. Mr Davey asked if any suggestion had been made to the doctor that the case was one of urgency and he had refused to receive it. . Dr Crooke replied' that no such suggestion had been made. Dr Hall, when asked by telephone, to take the patient in, had been informed that the patient would be sent for examination under etfher. Mr Rollitt asked if Dr Clayton's statement that he had found great difficulty in getting his cases admitted was true. Dr Crooke said there had been one or two chronic cases refused. There had not been room for them, <and the other doctors, had experienced the same thing. The Chairman said the hospital doctors had not been made aware of the urgency of the case. He would move — " That had Mrs Loader been sent to the hospital .directly the accident occurred, there would have been no objection, made to her reception, but the house surgeon was not awecß that it was an accident or urgent case; that the Board considered \hat Dr Crooke's letter sufficiently explained the

matter, .and tihat a copy of the resolution be sent to the Charitable Aid Board." Mr M'Haffie seconded the motion, which •was carried. Mr Dunlop said the difficulty would arise as long as there was not a proper place for the treatment of chronic cases. The time for action had come, and a building should be prepared for the treat-' I ment of the cases.