Health Service Commissioner : Second report for Session 1981-82 : Selected investigations completed October 1981-March 1982.

  • Great Britain. Health Services Commissioner.
Date:
1982
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : Second report for Session 1981-82 : Selected investigations completed October 1981-March 1982. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    166/200 page 164
    to be the safest course before contacting the family in Canada. They also said that it is the responsibility of the hospital concerned to notify relatives of a patient’s condition but that they frequently act on behalf of hospitals and ask relatives to contact the hospital for more detailed information. The PC said that as their main concern was the critical condition of the injured motorcyclist no search for identity documents was made before he was taken by ambulance to the Infirmary. His identity was then unknown but later they learned of Mr C’s address and it was recorded that this had been ‘obtained from documents in his [Mr A’s] possession’. The PC surmised that this information had come from the Infirmary. I have seen a police standing order that ‘the responsibility for notifying relatives of casualties taken to hospital for treatment rests with the institution concerned’. 11. The sister in charge of the Infirmary’s Accident and Emergency Depart- ment (A & E) on the evening of 22 July was unable to remember Mr A. However both she and the A & E night sister said that if a document such as a driving licence or credit card was found on an unconscious patient they would assume the patient was the person named thereon and this information would be given to the Police who would try to contact relatives. I have seen that Mr A’s name, address and date of birth were entered on the A & E records and an extract from the A & E ‘Patients Clothing’ book records among additional items ‘Il credit card + cards’. Both A & E sisters commented to my officer that in view of the documentary evidence it seemed that the patient’s identity was known during the short time he spent in A & E. I have also seen that his possessions were transferred with him when he went to the first ward and later to another ward (the second ward). The Div NO explained that the envelope containing his valuables had required replacement when the contents were rechecked on transfer. Hence it bore the later date. 12. The night sister on duty on the first ward when Mr A was admitted from A & E told my officer that she was unable to recall any telephone calis from Mr C but that she thought it reasonable that he was advised to attend in the morning to identify Mr A. The sister told my officer that when she came on duty in the morning she learned that Mr A had still to be formally identified, but she was unaware that Mr C had been given a time to do so. If his call had come through to the sisters’ room at 8 am either she or the night sister would have taken it but she had no recollection of it. There was a second telephone on the ward and if the call had been taken by a nurse she should have been told. I have been unable to identify any nurse who can remember taking such a call. The sister said that while it was undoubtedly true that they were ‘rather busy’ at that time it was a simple procedure to identify a patient and would have caused no disruption to the ward routine. 13. The SHO told my officer that when he arranged Mr A’s transfer to the hospital for the scan he did not know that Mr C had been told to attend the Infirmary to identify him. He said that the scan procedure was not usually a long one and so he had suggested to Mr C that rather than travel to the hospital he should return to the Infirmary after a few hours. The SHO did not know why Mr A’s return was delayed. The case notes suggest that
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3