Nursing Discipline

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 136, 25 June 1937, Page 6

Nursing Discipline

A DETRIMENTAL ELEMENT Matron Supplies Name To Commission "NO DOUBT IN MY MIND" Further matters relating to the management and organisation of the Napier Public Hospital were heard by the Royal Commission in Napier this morning. The matron} Miss L. M. Croft, when asked whether she knew of any instances where the conduct of any member of the board or honorary staff had heen detrimental to the discipline and co-operatlon of the nursing staff, supplied a name. There was "no douht in her mind," she declared when further questioned. Miss Croft stated that she made daily iounda at 10 a.m. .except on the days wKen she went out to the Memorial Hospital. Witness made a podnt of speaking to each patient. She inspected the ward-books freqnently to ensure that they were prbperly kept. Regarding the appearance of cockroaches, witness said that she had reported the matter to the ' secretary on different occasions. Steps were taken whenever cockroaches . were observed to combafc them, with insect-powder. Cf late months, witness stated, ehe had .not received the flillest co-opera-tion from 'the la'te sister of Shrimpton Ward. Witness explained that, except for negligible matters that would, not interest him, she conferred with the medical superintendent before bringing them .before the . board. In the event of a matter going to the , board before being, plabed; -before the medichl supOr: iLntendent, she wodld diselose , this fact", stating that she had not had an opportunity of diecussing it with him but ifitended to" do, so. The medical Jstiper^ intendent was familaaf with 'the metho'd adop'ted' by witness in the usual change? in st'affs."' Management Que&tdons. . Touching upon the, question of management, wjtness said that| she .felt that she had received eyery co-opera tion in .regard to, her reqnisitions,, bnt before -that she did not feel that she had received all that she could jxave. Begar'ding a specific instance ..of -the delay' in the delivery, of . gown-stands, which ; were an tes?ential requirement. she said that she could not explam the delay' that . had occurred between Fer requisition to the secretary - and tkeir delivery. by . the foreman of works. , _ The first requisition was to the board, which advised" that the stands had- been placed on the estimates. , The outside "of- the . hospital, witness explained, was under the cohtrol of the house .manager. Mr Fodeu: Whpm ad you regard as your most superior officer? ' Witness: - The medical superintendent. ' . - . . Who 'next?— "The " chairman of the board."" : 1 Who next?— "The managing. secretary."- ..... Have you ever heard a- member of the, honorary staff ' address a sist.er by her Christian-. nam.e? — " Yes, oue. ' ' And tbe converse?— -".No.'" - Dp .you know of. any instances jvliere the ; conduct of any n^ember of the boaTd or member, of the honorary staff has been detrimental tp the discipline' and co-operation of the - nursing staff ? —".Yes." Order of Authority. ;...- Your - definite . answer -indicates that you have no. doubt in" the ' matter?— ' There is no doubt in my ' mind. " Can you' give any n'ames?— Witness gave a narAe. ' ; •' - • / - " Miss -McKennie: ' I gathef;;that yciu regard • tho medical : supef intehd.ent . as your most superior authority?. Witness: Yes. I gather that you regard the man•iging secretary " as ; superior in authority to y ourself ? — * ' That • i s how it is under the present conditions.." I a'ssume that you regard - the -medica] superintendent, the chairman and the managing secretary "as all superior in authority, to yourself; you are then really f ourth ?— ' ' That ,is so," under the present cireumstances." " Mr Grant: You would not* suggest that Mr Rees is managing secretary between -you and the nurses? 1 * Witness: He. does not interfere with the. nursing. My reqyests go through him t,Q the board. " > ^9U r®S.aT^ the chairman *of the .bo.ard as your . superior not for anything" ,personal but because of his position? — "YesV"