State Examination of Midwives

Kai Tiaki : the journal of the nurses of New Zealand, Volume XV, Issue 1, 1 January 1922, Page 9

State Examination of Midwives

The State examination m midwifery nursing was held on November 30th and December lst, at the various St. Helens Hospitals, the McHardy Home, Napier, and the Whangarci Maternity Home. No less than five nurses passed equally for first place, with 95% of marks. Of the 72 candidates, 71 passed, and of these 49, besides the five who took first place, passed with honours over 75%. This is an excellent result, and should give the doctors and matrons who have taken such pains m the tuition of the pupils great satisfaction. Below are the questions and the comments of the examiner (Dr. Lindsay) on the written papers, which are most interesting. Tn regard to the later portion of the report, it will no doubt be necessary, now that more and more obstetric work is regarded on a surgical basis, to reject the class of women who are not sufficiently well educated to grasp the great principles of asepsis, though m many ways well fitted to nursing a normal case m her own home. QUESTIONS. 1. Name the causes of protracted labour, and indicate shortly such treatment as could be given by the nurse. 2. What are the important precautions to he taken for the prevention of post-partum hsemorrhage? 3. How would you endeavour to avoid the occur rence of eclampsia? 4. In a labour with pelvic presentation, after the lower limbs and trunk of the child have emerged, describe the further progress and show where and how assistance may be required. 5. When a child is born m a state of apparent asphyxia, describe how you would endeavour to establish regular respiration. 6. What is ophthalmia neonatorum? How is it to be avoided? EXAMINER 'S COMMENTS. " I have to report that I have gone over all the papers sent to me, and I enclose the list of numbers of the candidates, with the marks attached. With regard to the

very great majority of the candidates, I had no difficulty; but m the awarding of the highest place to one candidate, I found that I had to go over a large number very carefully, to separate them fairly. [J.ditor's note: The marks which equalised the five candidates m first place were for both written and oral examinations.] " You will see that there are a number of papers (four only) which I have marked '50,' which, I suppose, is a bare pass. These are papers written by candidates whose educational advantages are poor. There was nothing wrong m them, but their answers were the minimum of information m answer to the questions. Tarn as anxious as anyone to keep raising the class of women who hold 'the certificate of competence m midwifery after the training they obtain m the various St. Helens Hospitals ; but at the present time women are received for training with educational deficiency which must be recognised m the course of their training, and I do not think it is fair, provided they pass the test m the other portion of the examination, to fail them because they are deficient m the faculty of answering examination papers as fully and as satisfactorily as one would prefer. On the whole T have been very much impressed by the very fine papers sent m by the great majority of the candidates. Tt speaks w r ell for the thoroughness of the training given the pupil nurses. " Tn two instances, T noticed m grouns of papers answers which were due to differences m the teaching given. I refer to the diet of threatened eclamptics, m which a difference between read and white meat and fish is indicated, the one being permissible and the other not. It is well known that there is no difference m the ultimate chemistry m the body between the two, the only difference being one of easier digestibility, which is a different matter altogether. Tf the red meat has to be removed from the diet, so must the other. " The other matter is with reference to the ophthalmia, which m a group of papers was divided into (a) simple, (b) syphilitic. This classification was so gen-

eral, and there was no distinct reference to gonorrhoea! infection or to the gonococcus as the 'fons et origo' of the trouble, that 1 am sure the fault lay m the instruct tion. The matter is somewhat important, as one of the matters m which their training ought to be careful is m the recognition of the manifestation of syphilis. It is hardly fair to the candidates that they should not clearly understand the difference between syphilis and gonorrluea, and that the ophthalmia which is so dangerous is due to the gonococcal microorganisms. I have not the slightest idea of the identity of any of the candidates whose papers T have examined, nor have I the faintest notion of where any one of them was trained; so that T w^ould only say that the instruction wdiich T have criticised both with regard to the diet m eclampsia and the origin of the ophthalmia, is found repeated m the papers beginning with No. 1. Candidate No. 4 did a most excellent paper — one which it was a great pleasure to examine, — but it was marred by both these faults. " I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Health Department on the great work it is carrying out m this direction. The effect on the community is very marked already, and if, as pupils offer m numbers, selection was made m the way of combing out those who have had their education neglected, great strides will be made." PASSED FIRST. Townley St. Helens Hospital, Gisborne. — Mary Bagley, R.N. Alexandra Home, Wellington. — Elizabeth J. Caldwell. Batchelor Hospital, Dunedin. — Esther Elliott, R.N. St. Helens Hospital, Auckland. — Frances Wilkinson. Essex Home, Christchurch. — Elinor Wilson. TASSED WITH 75% OR OVER. St. Helens Hospital, Auckland. — Catherine Graham, R.N., Maria Drake. Elizabeth McQuire, Grace Mourant. Whangarei Hospital Annexe. — Margaret Spence, Phvllis Austin, Maud K. Gubb, R.N., Edith E. Crichton, R.N.

Kawakawa and Whangarei. — Amelia R. Moore. McHardy Home, Napier. — Lorna Bridge, R.N., Emma Fitzwilliam, Rose Rawlings. St. Helens Hospital, Wanganui. — Lizzie Fraser, R.N. St. Helens Hospital, Wellington. — Mary A. Whyte, R.N., Lily F. Cowie, R.N., Lily M. Hansen, Elizabeth M. Hall, Katrine B. Marsden, Dora Curtis, Ruby Cameron, Rose M. Thornton, Kathleen Ansenne, R.N. Alexandra Home, Wellington. — Mary Wilson, E. Lilian Berry, R.N., Agnes M. Welby, R.N. Wairau Maternity Home. — Olive Warring, Nancy J. Ross, R.N., Annie Dundon. Townley St. Helens, Gisborne. — Margaret E. Chatsworthy. Essex Home, Christchurch. — Nora Fitzgibbon, R.N. St. Helens, Christchurch. — Annie R. Bell, Ada I. Sanders, Ruth Wallace, Elizabeth J. Common, Margareta Beaumont, Alice R. Mulcock. St. Helens, Dunedin. — Elizabeth Hearfield, Edith M. Hancox, Deborah Lamberton. Batchelor Hospital, Dunedin. — Mary Peach, Sarah M. Norton. Naseby Hospital. — Olive Linklatcr. Cromwell Hospital. — Kathleen McLatchie. St. Helens Hospital, Invercar t gill. — Jean Trotter, R.N., Margaret Blackie, R.N., Margaret M. Telford. t ALSO SUCCESSFUL. St. Helens Hospital, Auckland. — Kathleen Blennerhassett, Marion Jones. Mangonui Hospital. — Annie Waite, Emma F. Ring. Kawakawa Hospital. — Beatrice Taylor. McHardy Home, Napier. — Lilian Cook. St. Helens Hospital, Wanganui. — 'Catherine Blackie, R.N., Emily Thomas. St. Helens Hospital, Wellington. — Inez Kingston, Margaret Boyd, R.N. Alexandra Home, Wellington. — Mabel E. Fletcher. Oxford Hospital. — Lillian Kennair, R.N. St. Helens Hospital, Christchurch. — Jane McKenzie, Trissie Harrison, Jane McGibbon, Dori^ Nelson. St. Helens Hospital, Dunedin. — Emma M. Jones, Flora Miaddren. Cromwell Hospital. — Gladys Nott. St. Helens Hospital, Invercargill. — Brida Murray. N.B,— The above names are not m order of merit.