Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner.

Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.

Date:: [1981]

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner. Source: Wellcome Collection.

9/218 (page 7)

$inhuman and asked if an alternative form of treatment was available or if an anaesthetic might be suitable. The nurse, he said, left the room in a state of apparent indignation and the boy and his parents were shown into another room. Some five minutes later, another member of the nursing staff arrived and suggested to the complainant and his wife that the use of an anaesthetic on so young a child was a somewhat drastic measure. The complainant reaffirmed that it seemed inhuman to carry on Ape ey the ON as it was causing his son so much pain and distress. 5. The complainant said that abe SHO Sad a nursing oficer (the NO) were called to attend. The complainant described: the ensuing conversation to my officers as a farce. He said that he enquired about the use of an anaesthetic and the SHO made reference toa ‘figure-of-eight’ bandage which, to the com- plainant, seemed to bear no relevance-to his.enquiry. He told my officers that the SHO seemed neither to understand the situation nor to be able to speak English competently; the NO had tried to help the SHO and had explained to him that it was his decision whether. or not an anaesthetic should be used. 6. The complainant went on to tell my officers that after this conversa- tion the SHO had withdrawn and returned with another, apparently senior, doctor whom I have identified as the senior casualty officer (the SCO). The SCO expressed ‘the view that the complainant’s son ought to be treated under general : anaesthetic and the complainant: said that he became alarmed at the conflicting views: the SHO had decided upon treatment without any anaesthetic; a member of the nursing staff had expressed the view that to administer a general anaesthetic to such a young child was a drastic measure; and the SCO had then said that he thought the complainant’s son ought to be treated under general anaesthetic. The complainant said that he tried to point out this discrepancy but met with little’‘co-operation or explanation until a doctor (he was, in fact, an anaesthetist) spoke to them and, on his advice, ae SS to further treatment under general anaesthetic. | | - 7. [have seen from a eueat ade by the NO some seven eels after the event that when the SHO had seen the x-ray he diagnosed a fractured left clavicle and requested that a figure-of-eight bandage be applied. The NO recorded also that a state enrolled nurse (the first SEN) attempted to clean the friction burn, which covered an area approximately 8” x6”, using Savlon and’ gauze. [have seen from the first SEN’s statement, made at about the same time, that a soft brush was also used to help clean the friction. burn. Both the NO and the first SEN recorded in their statements that a mild analgesic was given to the complainant’s son to help relieve his discomfort. The first SEN’s statement also confirmed that the complainant and his wife insisted on staying with their son and that it was the complainant who first mentioned the possibility of an anaesthetic being administered, 8. The NO’s statement records: ‘At approximately 8.30 pm I saw [the com- plainant and his wife] along with [the SHO]. Both [parents] asked [the SHO] if it was possible for their son to be given a local anaesthetic before the abrasions were cleaned. [The SHO] did not understand and went on about a local anaesthetic not being required for the application of a figure 8 bandage. [The parents] repeated the question but got the same answer. I then tried to ask the iL$