MENTAL PATIENT'S DEATH

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2463, 17 May 1915, Page 7

MENTAL PATIENT'S DEATH

SCALDED IN A BATH

REFERENCES TO NEGLECT

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE

The medical superintendent of the Porirua Mental Hospital received a report from an attendant on Sunday last that an old patient named James Hamblyn was suffering from burns about the body. The patient was immediately attended to, but died the following morning. A coronial inquiry was opened by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., the following day a't which there was not the slightest evidence how deceased came to receive the injuries that caused his death. The inquest was consequently adjourned, and on Saturday afternoon last re-opened again. On Saturday, the attendant concerned in deceased's death gave contradictory evidence to his previous statement that lie did iiot know how deceased received the burns, and as this evidence was substantiated by additional evidence froni previous witnesses the Coroner was able to arrive it a verdict.

The inquest Opened. ■When the inquest was opened oil Tuesday Dr. Grey Hassell, medical superintendent of the Hospital; said deceased had been admitted. into the Hospital ou November 2, 1903.- suffering from chronic melancholia. Deceased took no interest in . anything and rarely spoke to anybodyi. being_ silent for months at a time. The injury to deceased was first observed on the Sunday evening by Attendant Dickson, who reported the matter. The patient died the following morning from shock from burns or scalds received, in different parts of his body. The doctor said he could not suggest in what way deceased had been scalded except in the bath or from having boiling water thrown over him.

John Dickson, attendant at the Hospital, said he saw deceased at about 6.40 a.m. on the Sunday going into the day room, and there appeared to be nothing wrong with him. He noticed deceased was burnt at about 7.20 that evening. Witness. could riot say how deceased received his injuries and did not know whether he had been bathed during the day. Other officials in the Hospital gave evidence that they had not knotvil how deceased came by the burns.

■ When the inquiry was re-opened on_ Saturday Mr. E. 0. Levvey was present on behalf of the attendant Dickboii.

Dickson was recalled and said he wished to make a further statement in addition to the evidence previously given. Mr. Levvey interrupted here and submitted Dickson was entitled to say nu evidence that might be incriminating at the present, inquiry in the case or any subsequent proceedings. The Coroner replied that he could not agree with this. Dickson was not yet charged with anything, and as far as the. present Cotlrt was concerned it did not know how the accident had occurred.

Mr. Levvey remarked that Dickson might be placed in a very serious position by shearing what he had and then contradicting it. The inquiry proceeded. HOW Deceased Was Scalded. Continuing his evidence Dickson said the first time he saw deceased was on SundaJ morning about 6.40. Witness noticed he was not clean and told an inmate named Perry to take him into, the bathroom. Perry had been in the habit of doing this. Witness saw Perry •take deceased in and he then wont over to No. 2 ward to get a patient to make beds ill No. 1 ward. Witness was away about minutes and when !he returned to No. 1 ward he went into the bathroom and found Perry and deceased there. During witness's absence Perry had got the bath key out of the store and had also got a plug for the hath. Witness did not know •who turned on the water. There was about five or six inches of water in the bath. made a great mistake—he did not test the temperature of the water and told Hamblyn to jump in. fitness .did not notice the water steaming. Witness concluded the water must have been turned on a few minutes before he came in. Hamblyn jumped in the bath when told, and v/heii he got in he fell and immediately oommenced to cry out. Witness then put his hand in the water and found it was too hot. Witness turned on the cold Water first and then got deceased out immediately. Witness did not notice anything the matter with deceased's skin rind he was dressed again. Deceased did not complain when he was got out of the water. If witness thought the water was too warm and deceased hurt he would certainly have reported the matter.

A Question of Rula. Later deceased and Perry went into tie day room. t The first procedure) according to rule m bathing a patient, was to turn on the cold water and then turn oil the hot water, until it reached the proper temperature—between So and 90 degrees. The Magistrate: You know the rule that an attendant must be present whfin the water is turned on?

Witness: Yes. hut Perry went and got the key to ton the water on. it was not my fault. Continuing, witness said he did not tell Ferry to turn the water on. Witness did Hot pay any particular attention to Hamblyn throughout the day. Tins was all witness knew about it; Ihe Magistrate; Do you wish to qualify your previous evidence? Witness: I can say I was a bit frightened at tho time, and I did not tell the truth then. The statement I make now is correct in eveTv detail. Dr. Hassell: Did you confide in any of tho other attendants in. regard to the matter? !

Mf. Levvey objected to this question, tho Magistrate remarking, however, that it -was quite fair.

At this witness replied that he could say he had not itientioued the mattor.

How Was tho Bath Key Kept?

_ Viviaii Radfotd Briggs, another official, gave further evidence. Tho usual procedure in respect to the bath, said witness, was for the attendant to get the key and the plug from the store for the bath. A possible way for a patient to get the bath key was for him to jump over the lower half of the stgre-rooni door (which was a divided oifl), and get what he wished.

_To Dr. Hassell: Witness was responsible for the key of the bath. It was not the practice when the storeman was left without in attendant to have both the lower and upper part of the door locked. Witness had been ill tho store ?hat morning and locked the lower part of the. door.

To the. Magistrate: No attendant, had ever advised him that a patient had got the bathroom key and turned the water on.;

To Mr. LeVvey: Aiiv of tlie patients linew where the bath "key was kept.

Further HilidenoD frotrt Dr. Hassell. Dr. Hassell stated that ho would like to he recalled after hearing the evidence of Attendant Dickson. Witness said in his opinion the scalding thaL deceased receiVi'd tvtiiiid iiot have proved fatal in

an ordinary healthy individual. Just after the accident he had no doubt deceased's skin was merely reddened, the blistering occurring during the course of the day some time—possibly hours after —deceased had the bath. In chronic dementia, as in dcceascd's case, the skin was particularly susceptible to injury. This was due to the feverish and nervous condition of the patient, and the bad circulation of tlio blood lowering the nutrition of the tissues. Such injury which dcceascd received would in an ordinary individual havo been very acutely painful, but deceased showed very "little evidence of distress on the Sunday, and moved about and took his meals well. This insensibility, was duo to paralysis of feeling, a symptom common iii cases of chronic dementia. Very likely deceased would not have died had ho been placed under treatment immediately after he had been scaldcd. In witness's opinion the temperature of the water at the fcimo was 1 140 degrees Farenheit. Steam would, of course, be rising from it. The coroner's Verdict, In giving his verdict the Coroner remarked that it was satisfactory that the attendant Dickson had given evidence which showed how the accident had occurred. The first thing to consider in the case was the position m respect to the key of the bath./ It appeared that the key should be kept in such a position where it could only be got at by tho attendants. Then if the store were always kept locked, only attendants with the key to the door could get in. This was only a preliminary matter, however. The evidence showed neglect on the part of Dickson in not testing the water, whilo his second neglect was not to have informed the superintendent so that deceased might havo received immediate medical attention. Had the latter been done, the result would no doubt have been different. His v6rdict would be that deceased died from shock from burns received while being bathed by Dickson, who neg ected to test the water before deceased was placed in it.