AUCKLAND HOSPITAL INQUIRY

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 13680, 14 May 1912, Page 2

AUCKLAND HOSPITAL INQUIRY

CHARGES AGAINST THE MATRON LIVELY PROCEEDINGS. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 13. An inquiry into the charges preferred against the Matron of the Auckland .Hospital (Miss Griffiths) by the Board's Medical Committee (of which Dr. Pahst is chairman), was opened this morning. The following .nembers of the Board were present— Messrs. H, Schofield (chairman), P. M. Macka ■ U. J. H. Ellisdon, J. Jenkins, M. J. Coyle, P. J. Ncrheny, J. 11. Potter, J. S. Dickson, J. G. .Rutherford, and F. Dye. Dr. Pabst (chairman of the Medical Committee), and Miss Griffiths (Matron of Hospital) wore also present. The Chairman, in opening th<j inquiry, said that it was a continuance

if the inquiry which was opened some five or six weeks ago into certain statements made before the Board by the Chairman of the Honorary Staff (Dr. Pabst) against the Lady Superintendent. One meeting was held, and the otiiv clause dealt with was No. 1.

Mr. Schofield impressed upon the Board the necessity of conducting the inquiry in a calm and temperate manner. Ho proposed to begin with clause two (containing an allegation of impertinence and insolence to superiors).

Dr. Pahst asked formally for the susponv.on of the Matron from her Antics during the inquiry.

The Chairman said that he would ask the Matron to instruct the Assistant

Lady Superintendent to take charge in the meantime. The Matron intimated that she had already done so. Considerable heat was shown during

a discussion which followed, and though at ono stago it seemed that a, definite start with the subject of the complaints had been indefinitely postponed, a beginning was at last made with Complaint No. ‘2, which alleged insolence on the part of the Matron towards her superiors. The point in dispute was trivial enough. Dr. Bnbst contended that bv-law 135 made the Lady Superintendent responsible to the Medical Committee for the efficiency of the nursing staff.

Miss argued that the Hoard wp-. tlie “superior officer” to which she had to look for instructions.

Evidence was giyen by Dr. Maguire and Sister Rudd. Nurse Rudd’s only relevant evidence concerned her appointment by the Matron as temporary' home sister. Incidentally she mentioned that since 22nd February 17 maids had left the home, and further, she '■■tatos that she had had a most unhappy time.

Mr. Dickson pressed for a statement as to how many people Sister Rudd had consulted about the subject matter of the inquiry. Tbo Sister said she bad discussed the matter with the sub-Matron and Dr. Maguire. Mr. Coyle said that in view of Mr. Dickson’s question it would be interesting to know what members of the Board had been repeatedly closeted with the Matron during the last month. Ho trusted that this aspect of the affair would be verv thoroughly investigated. Mr. Nerhenv took very strong exception to Mr. Coyle’s remark. Evidently Mr. Coyle's liver was very much out of order. There was no nets I for these threats. Mr. Cnvle; Wait and see.

A passage-at-arms followed hot ween Mr. Nerheny and Dr. Palrst, the former accusing the doctor “of having left his conscience in Sydney.”

Sister It.n cld, in explaining an incident in connection with the broaching of n, lock, said that she had gone to the Matron and asked for linen, and stated that it was urgently required. The Mat rnn had thereupon accused her of telling lies.

M iss Griffiths denied this accusation. Dr. Palx«et asked that Nurse Williams bo called in order that Sister Rudd’s statement might lie corroborated. The Chairman urged that thev should get on with tho business in the order leaded upon.

Dr. Pabst.: If this Board is anxious for tho truth and not desirous of suppressing tilings it will call Nurse Williams.

Nurse Williams, when called, stated that on Easter Monday while playing

her banio in her room, she heard the. Matron declare to someone on tho Aomin c. loud voice, “It’s a lie!” Tho Matron indicated that she would prefer to reply to this and other points of evidence at a later stage.

The Chairman at 12-30 suggested a luncheon adjournment. Dr. Pabst : Might I now suggest that tho Matron he suspended on the evidence of the two nurses?

Tho doctor's rooucst was received with loud laughter from half tho Board members present. Air. Norhenv : ft would he more sensible to ask that you he suspended on the strength of the attitude, you have taken up this morning.

Mr. Mackay: You have no right to sav that.

Mr. Nerheny; Don’t yon dare to dictate to me what I should say. A’ou can shiver and shake as much" as you like, but you need not try to frighten me.

Tho Chairman stated that the Board would proceed with a thorough investigation, and the inquiry was accordingly adjourned.

The Board then proceeded to investigate a complaint, that on February 21st tho Matron replied to the chairman of tho Medical Committee that it was wasting her time to ask her such questions. Dr. Pahst remarked that the Matron’s reply virtually made no reference to the actual complaint of insolence and impertinence. This complaint arose from tho incident of tho admission of Nurse Hay to ward seven. Miss Griffith explained that after having given an explanation on two occasions, she was asked for a written report. She spout much valuable time in drafting a report, but when she personally submitted it Dr. Pahst refused to receive it. Miss Griffiths considered that Dr. Pahst was obviously desirous of wasting her time.

A lengthy discussion followed regarding the rejection of tho report, in tiro course of which Miss Griffiths admitted that she had asked Dr. Pahst to convey

all his instructions to her in writing

Mr. Potter asked why Dr. Pabst had reported as Into as December 31st that the conduct of the hospital was satisfactory, and then had apparently suddenly found that everything was wrong. Dr. Pahst replied that after one meeting ho told Mr, Potter that the Matron was unsatisfactory in every way. Mr. Potter: I deny that absolutely. Mr. Mackay: I heard the doctor tell von so.

Mr. Ncrheny heatedly charged Dr. Pahst with deliberate subterfuge, lack of business methods, and with wasting the time of the Board. Dr. Pahst asked for the withdrawal of this remark, hut the chairman rerdied that Mr. Ncrheny was quite right, though Messrs. Coyle and Mackay protested against such an opinion being expressed by the chairman.

Or. Pabst added that he did not wish to -make an unfavourable report upon the Matron until compelled to do so. Upon the third complaint, under the. charge of insolence. Dr. Pabst said tiie question was simply ono of the Matron’s demeanour towards him in his official position, and upon that noint the Hoard had Dr. Macirniro’s evidence. Ho considered that Miss Griffith’s reply was in no way a rebuttal of the complaint, OTHER CHARGES. Several other charges were dealt with to-day, the last one being that on January Bth the Lady Superintendent placed a charwoman in charge of two cases in the scarlet fever ward. Her defence was that the woman was wardsmaid, that the cases were convalescent, and that the maid (sudd easily telephone for assistance if necessary. Dr. Macguiro said that it did not matter whether the person was a wardsmaid or a charwoman, but, so far as hu knew, there wore no wardsmaids in the hospital, and tho woman concerned was described in the pay-sheets as a charwoman. Tho question was that the Matron had detailed an unskilled person to look after two cast's of scarlet fever. It was absurd for the Matron to say that the woman could ’phone for a nurse, because the ward with which she would communicate was a diphtheria one. Ho considered it very had management on the part of the Matron. Tho arrangement was for four hours in the afternoon, and for four hours in the evening on alternate days. Miss Griffiths said it was for one day only. Sister Taylor, Assistant Lady Superintendent. gave evidence that the arrangement was as described by Dr. Maguire, tho woman being appointed to robovo the nurse when tho latter desired it.

Dr. Maguire added that the reason why the woman was in the ward only ono day was that complaint was made alxuit the matter by Dr. Grant, and the arrangement was immediately stopped. During the subsequent conversation on this matter, Mr. Nerhenv made a. remark regarding Dr. Masnvire and Dr. Grant, which was strongly resented by Dr. Maguire, and he withdrew from tho room.

Dr. Pal«t then protested on the part of Hr. Grant, and described is as cowardly to attack a man in his absence.

Mr. Nerhenv retorted that Dr. Pabst was himself a coward, and for a few minutes the atmosphero was electric. At first Mr. Nerhenv refused to withdraw his remarks, but was prevailed upon to do so. and Dr. Babst having in bis turn withdrawn tbo remarks resented !)V Mr. Nerhenv, the inquiry was adjourned until tliis morning.