Family right to call for hospital ombudsman

THE appalling treatment of a seriously ill patient, an 81-year-old man in Beaumont Hospital is a damning, sad comment on what can and does happen when an unfortunate patient ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time in the shambolic excuse for what people hope against hope will function as an efficient health service.

Without being in a position to name names and shame those responsible for stripping away the dignity of a man suffering from Parkinson’s and heart disease while at the same time being incontinent, the only conclusion to be drawn is that blatant organisational failings are to blame for allowing this sort of thing to happen.

It is utterly contrary to what nurses join the profession for because every atom of their being is to be a caring person.

Nor should staff shortages or scarcity of funds be blamed. Every hospital in the country suffers from these strictures and yet some are able to operate efficiently while others cannot.

The only saving aspect is the fact that Beaumont Hospital has apologised for its abject failure to treat the late Gerry Feeney on December 19 last year, shortly before his death, with the proper respect and dignity of care that he deserved and which every patient has a right to expect.

However, the fact that almost a year has passed while an independent investigation was being carried out means the Feeney family had to wait until now to hear the word “apology”.

That typifies a health service where, when something goes wrong, the victims or their families have to fight tooth and nail for justice.

All too often, families are dragged through the courts for years before an apology is eventually given, usually accompanied by the phrase ‘without an admission of liability’.

Health Minister Leo Varadkar has pledged to change that unacceptable and outdated system.

The sooner he does, the better it will be for the families and also for the doctors, nurses and managers involved in cases of alleged negligence. Saying sorry is not the same as admitting liability.

The facts of this case are both shocking and alarming. According to the 34-page report commissioned by the hospital, it was “completely unacceptable” that Mr Feeney’s incontinence pad was undone, with his manhood exposed while wearing a gown soiled by drink and food as he sat on a chair.

No wonder it found there was a failure to protect his dignity.

Arguably, if while visiting him, a relative had not taken a photograph of the dishevelled state he was in, so as to uphold the family’s complaint, the conclusion of the probe could have been different.

As the old saying goes, a picture tells more than a thousand words.

The evidence was undeniable.

In a damning comment, the report observes that the bay should have been staffed at all times but goes on to say no member of staff was present at the time and neither the patient nor his relative could get assistance.

It is absolutely shameful that Mr Feeney was left in such a state.

The family are right to call for a hospital ombudsman, something that has worked well in other areas of Irish life, because no probe by doctors and former nurses can really be “independent”.