IN GPHC’s most recent release, Management stated that the issue pertaining to Mr. Premdat Narine will not be debated any further, but that the police will be allowed the opportunity to do their job and make the final pronouncement on the matter. However, Management is compelled to issue a statement in response to the Guyana Chronicle’s July 20, 2010 edition captioned, “Police grant some Craig residents, GPHC staffer bail.” This is the first article written by the Guyana Chronicle on this matter and there are a number of inaccuracies.
First, the headline article inaccurately suggests that a GPHC staffer was in police custody and had to be bailed. The fact is that no GPHC staff was in custody and had to be bailed. It is not yet known by the Administration whether any charges have been brought against those residents who assaulted the staff and damaged the hospital’s ambulance.
Second, Mr. Narine’s age is reported as 60. However, the hospital’s records show he is 58.
Third, the article stated that GPHC’s release claimed that “the teenage girl’s mother was Narine’s wife and she visited him daily …” this is a misrepresentation of the statements that were released. What was stated was that upon ALL admissions, the individual who accompanied Mr. Narine presented herself as his wife and it was she who visited him during his admissions.
The fourth error that can be highlighted in this article was the date of Mr. Narine’s discharge. The hospital’s release stated that the incident occurred on July 15, 2010. No mention was made of his dates of admissions or discharges.
The aforementioned are only four of the several erroneous statements published in this article. The Hospital’s Management wishes to express its disappointment with the Guyana Chronicle for their failure to seek and pay attention to the facts of the matter before taking it to print.
Additionally, it is observed that efforts were made to speak with Craig residents, but to date, no media operative has approached the Public Relations or Chief Executive Officers’ Offices to obtain the hospital’s side of the problem.
GPHC reiterates that there was no medical reason for Mr. Narine to be hospitalised. He was given clear discharge instructions and the plan for his continuing care. Every effort was made by the hospital to locate Mr. Narine’s home and to take him there.