ADVICE ABOUT PATIENTS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5115, 15 April 1927, Page 4

ADVICE ABOUT PATIENTS

COMPLAINT AGAINST HOSPITAL.

NGATEA CASE BEFORE BOARD.

A complaint of inattention to a telephone inquiry concerning the condition 1 of a child who was a patient at the. Thames Hospital was introduced by a letter from Mr E. L. Walton, a member of the board. The letter detailed the complaint made, by Mr RB. Hodgson, of Ngatea, in regard to the treatment of his throe-year-old daughter.

Mr Walton said he had brought the matter under the notice of the chairman (Mr AV. E. Hale), who had requested that a report be obtained from the secretary for production ‘at that day’s meeting. Mr Hodgson had stated that after a diagnosis frpih Dr. A. S. Gray that the child was suffering from dysentery, the child was conveyed to the Thames Hospital. The hospital was telephoned each morning for twelve days, the parents being informed (presumably by the telephone attendant after full and proper inquiry) that the child was improving, Finally someone (it was assumed the matron) came to the ’phone and asked when the Hodgsons were coming- to see the child, as it was doing no good. The same day the parents were informed that the medical superintendent lhad said the child was “doing no good, and he thought it was suffering from typhoid.” Mrs Hodgson thereupon motored to Thames and told th e hsopital nurse that she would have to remove, her child, and was informed that the medical superintendent’s consent would first have to be obtained.

“Mrs Hodgson,” the. letter read, “asked to see the doctor, for whom a nurse sent a message. The doctor would not come, but gave his consent over the ’phone to the child’s removal. Mrs Hodgson took the child that evening to Auckland and consulted Dr. Sweet, who said it was suffering from dysentery. It was taken to a private hospital. Mrs Hodgson has remained in Auckland and the child is recovering under Dr. Sweet’s treatment. 1 ”

On receipt of the letter from Mr AValton the secretary stated that he had got into touch with the superintendent (Dr. AV. Sowerby), and received a reply as follows :—

“The child was admitted on the recommendation of Dr. Gray on February 28 with a diagnosis of enteritis of one week’s duration. The child was given the ordinary treatment for such conditions, and improved slightly to begin with, but later on showed no response to treatment. This being so typhoid was suspected, but on March 10, the day before the child’s removal, the report came back negative. On March 11 I was rung up by Mrs Hodgson and asked how tire child was. She was informed that the child was not getting on as well as we would like it to. The. same afternoon I was informed by Sister Fullerton that the mother was there and wished to take the child to Auckland to see Dr. Sweet. I consented to this. As regards my refusing to see her, I never received a message that she wished to see me, otherwise I could have come over to the hospital or she could have visited me.

“As regards the diagnosis, it is very easy to come to the correct one with a pathological department and an army of experts behind one.. I might say that on March 12 I saw Dr. Sweet and asked him what he thought of the. child. He replied that he thought it was dysentery (flexner), although the condition is comparatively rare in this country.”

Mr Walton said that the. doctor had confined his report to the diagnosis of the ease, but his chief concern was the apparent lack of attention given to telephone inquiries at the hospital. He knew of other instances where insufficient answers had been given to inquiries from people living in the country. With Mr W. J. Hall he had that morning interviewed Dr. Spwerby, and had received an assurance that all telephone inquiries were promptly attended to; but he still claimed that there, was lack of attention. He realised that in a busy institution the telephone might be regarded as a nuisance, but all the same it was of the greatest importance to country people.

Mr Walton then moved that the board emphasise the necessity of furnishing, in every case, the correct information to all relatives of country patients.

In seconding, Mr J. Rowe said that he thought the resolution was quite right. >

Mr Ai R. Robinson said he. could also quote instances of unsatisfactory information having been given. The fault appeared to be with, the telephone attendant, even though she might first inquire of the matron.

The chairman said that members must realise that it was not always possible to get the matron at short notice ; but the attendant could then go to the sister, in charge of the ward. The resolution was sound, and he 'hoped it would be the means of tightening up any laxity that might prevail.

Mr J. Lange objected to the resolution, and suggested that it was quite possible that under the stress of anxiety and worry people were not normal. It was impossible for a telephone attendant to interpret the; feelings of the mother in such cases. It was also to be remembered that the attendant had many distractions, and he did not think it was wise to interfere.

Mr C. W. Parfitt contended that it was only right that relatives should be. given reliable information over tlie telephone, and country people should be given every consideration.

Mr Hall said that he, too, could quote cases, and he was. quite in favour of the resolution. The attendant should always make her inquiries from the matron or sister before replying. Mr Walton pointed out that the superintendent’s 'report and the attendant’s statement did not agree. Mr Lange 'had suggested that a. parent’s mentality might not lie normal, but Mr Walton said he knew the Hodgson family well. They were good settlers of standing on the Hauraki

Plains, and were not given to exaggeration. Their statements were worthy of credence, and it was unfair to suggest that their minds we.re unbalanced. The parents had driven to Thames by special car when they realised the. condition of the child. Mr C. AV. Kennedy thought the resolution carried a certain suggestion of incompetency, and he did not 1111 the. resolution should go on in face of the explanation given by the medical superintendent and matron. Hi experience was that the attendant made careful inquiries from the proper quarter before giving any information. It would probably be better to acquaint the superintendent with the board’s views rather than carry the resolution. Mr Walton said that Mr Rennet y was wrong to the extent that eorrect information had not been given. Hie position was misleading to countij people. , Mr Dauby said that he appreciated the anxiety of those who had people sick in the hospital, and he understood that the sister in charge of the ward 'had communicated the. condition of the child to the parents. Mr AValton said that he could P«t Mr Dauby right. It was not until six days after, the child was admitted that it went back. It was only reasonable to think that there should have been no delay in advising the parents. Mr Danby said he was not prepared to answer for the superintendent. It was a matter of retrogression, and it had been necessary to await developments. It was not always wise to advise every symptom, because, it might be temporary only. Mr Kennedy said' that people were entitled to receive correct information, but if the resolution was carried it should not be, broadcasted.

Mr Lange, said that it was undesirable to fall foul of the superintendent, and he could not be expected to disclose full particulars. Relatives were entitled to certain information, which, when given, should create a better feeling and one of confidence between the public and the institution.

Mr Kennedy asked that the matter be kept out of the Press. Mr AValton said he was not prepared to move any direction to the Press, and he had no desire to impute anything against the staff, whose minds were concentrated on the institutional side, and did not take, in the parent’s side of the matter. The purpose of his resolution was to emphasise the country people’s point of view. Mr Danby contended that the resolution aws a direct imputation that lution was a direct imputation that correct information 'had not been given.

After further discussion the resolution was carried, the voting being 7to 2. *