SOLDIERS' SANATORIUM.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18365, 24 April 1925, Page 19

SOLDIERS' SANATORIUM.

ECONOMY COMPLAINT.

FOOD AND STAFF. Soldier patients in the upper Sanatorium at Cashmere are complaining bitterly at the present time regarding an economy policy said to have been reccntlv introduced into that institu-

"We feel," said a soldier patient yesterday, "that the Hospital Board does not seem to be giving us a fair deal. There have been staff reductions, and the quality .of the food is at times disgraceful. We have men seriously ill here, and men (lying, yet the expert attention required is not there. There are nothing like the same facilities in the Soldiers' Sanatorium for dealing with serious oases as exist in the other two institutions, and the patients consequently suffer. We dread what is likely to happen during the winter time. Two of the soldier patients who were able to walk transferred themselves to the Coronation Hospital in order to secure better conditions. Discord exists between the men and the matron, and there have been continual staff troubles, and five orderlies recently went on strike. There are now only four orderlies as against five previously, and the nursing staff is much below what it was when the Sanatorium was under military control. There arc only four nursing sisters, who are the only trained people in the hospital to look after upwards of eighty men. The doctor in charge is doing all he can for the men, and the patients are all quite satisfied with the medical attention. In other matters, however, and especially the matter of fowl, the men have much to complain of. We cannot understand tho necessity for a. policy of economy on the part of the Hospital Board. We understand that a Bubsidy of 10s a day for each soldier patient is received regularly by the Board from the Government, yet the patients in the other two institutions are- charged only 8s a day, and not 50 per cent, of that, charge is ever collected. Wo consider, therefore, that it is not. fair for the Board to_ economise in the administration of tho to the detriment of the patients, when so largo an assured income fo.r the support of those patients is received from the Government and not from local taxation. Tho position really is that we are not getting the benefit of the Government subsidy. If the cost of maintenance is less than the 10s a day provided by the Government, then some other departments aro reaping the benefit, and not the soldiers."

Mr H. J. Otley's Reply. A "Press" representative brought the matter under the notice of Mr H. J. Otlcy, chairman of the Hospital Board, last evening. "There lias been no alteration m the standard of th« food," said Mr Otlcy. "There aro now only 70 patients in the institution, and consequently the staff 'has been reduced in proportion to the number of patients. I was at the Sanatorium yesterday, find received no coniplaiat from the doctor. Tho statement that two of tho soldier patients transferred themselves to tho Coronation Hospital is not true. One left, and •was sent back to the Coronation Hospital : the other was moved to tho Coronation Hospital several months ago. The orderlies who wont on strike walked out, but later wanted to come back. They then found their places filled. No alterations have been made so far, but they will be made sooner or later. "As regards tho nursing staff,," continued Mr Otlcy, "if tho patients are reduced in number, then of eourso the staff must he reduced in proportion. That is only a matter of business sense. The latter portion of the complaint dealing with the figures is .quite wrong. The Hospital Board is carrying out the work for the Government, arid tho Government pays. As a matter of fact, tho patients in the other two institutions alluded to pay i)s a day only if able, and a. good deal of that is not collected. The whole of the expenditure comes from the Government and not from local taxation. Tho statement that the other departments reap tho benefit of maintenance is quite untrue, and the Board neither makes nor loses. The institution is as well staffed as the doctors consider-necessary to do the work. Tho Board's duty is to maintain the institutions for the Government and for the benefit of the soldiers, and tho Board must treat the Government fairly in the matter.''

Tho figures for the year in the upper Sanatorium would prove that tho men wero being well looked aftef, said Mr Otley, quoting tho following table, which gives a clear idea of the position:— Average number of patients for the past year .. .. 69.8 £ s. d. Cost of provisions .. 3,614: § 4 Cost of surgery and dispensary .. .. 228 9 5 Domestic costs .... 4,603 1 9 Salaries and wages .. 6,134 611 Miscellaneous .. 323 S 6 Total .. .. £14,903 8 11 The fees collected totalled £10,132 7s 6d, and the amount receivablo and owing at present by tho Government totalled £4771 Is sd. "This does not look as if the men are not looked after." remarked Mr Otley. "I Would be the last person on earth to let those men go' short of anything." The approximate amount expended on each man per year, it would be seen, was £212. The truth or otherwise of the assertions made in the statement could be further judged by a comparison with the figures for tho year in connexion with the Consumption Sanatorium, wnic'fl are as follows: —

Average number of patients .. 144.5 £ s. d. Cost of provisions .. 7,641 16 11 Cost of surgery and dispensary .. •• „ - 1 Domestic costs ■. ",570 19 10 Salaries and wages .. . 6,226 16 11 Total •• •• £19,895 1G 3 The fees collected totalled £5680 ISs 9d, the income from bequests totalled £72 12s 6d. The approximate amount expended on each man per year iu this institution was £124 odd. Thus it would be seen that in the Soldiers' Sanatorium, nearly double the amount was'expended per man than in the Consumption Sanatorium. "I visit the instituion a good deal," concluded Mr Otley, "and I've always found the food and conditions as good as I would want. The men have never complained to me, but of course you will come across men who would growl at anything."