.jpg)
The mother of one believes that her stillbirth was due to the negligence of some nurses in the maternity ward; especially one who she claimed treated her like “an animal” and was more interested in reading a newspaper than in tending to her.
Ms. Wangya told the Guyana Chronicle at her home after being discharged from hospital that, on July 23, she realised that her tummy was getting very large and she was feeling what she assumed was the onset of labour pains. She did not want to have any complications; but although she had mothered a three-year-old, she knew nothing about labour pains, because she had never experienced it before.
She said the nurses at the GPHC told her she was having “bearing down pains”, but that she was not ready to go into delivery. She was also told that once the baby’s head was turned downwards, she would have to push the baby out; and if that were not the case, she would likely have to be cut (Caesarean section or C-section).
However, despite being unacquainted with labour pain, Ms Wangya said she was convinced that she was having labour pains. Nevertheless, she was not admitted to the maternity ward but was sent home, since the nurses told her she was not ready to deliver, despite their checking her and her complaining of not feeling well.
Ms Wangya said she returned to the GPHC on July 27, after she again began feeling what she thought were labour pains. Moreover, she felt as if her ‘water bag’ had burst. The woman said when she revisited the hospital, she told a nurse that she was ‘leaking’ and the nurse informed her that she was going to be checked and a determination would be made on whether she should be admitted in hospital.
Ms Wangya said that each time she visited the hospital, she was told by the nurses that she was not ready to deliver; and despite her several pleas to be admitted because of the pain she was feeling, she was repeatedly told that her womb was not ready, and that it was not open.
Throughout this ordeal, she was having terrible and unbearable pains and while at the GPHC on July 27, she really wanted to know why she was having all that pain. On checking, the woman claimed that she was again advised that she was not ready for delivery.
On July 27, she was checked by three nurses, who again advised that she was not ready for delivery because she was not in labour, and they saw no need for her to be admitted to the GPHC, even for monitoring purposes.
She next visited the GPHC on August 2. She said that from the time she had first visited that institution on July 23, right through to August 2, she never stopped experiencing the pain. Accordingly, her decision to revisit the hospital on August 2 was due to the intense pains coupled with what she described as leaks.
When she told the nurses that she was leaking, all that was done was that she was placed on an oxygen machine and given saline, with them informing her that the oxygen was not for her, but rather the baby. She was informed that the baby was ok, the heart rate was what it should be, and that a doctor would shortly check her condition.
The distraught Ms Wangya said she was checked by two persons, who said they were not seeing any fluid. Thereafter, the woman was again informed that her ‘water bag’ had not burst, and that she was not in labour. She was placed in a section of the maternity ward where she was told she would have to be monitored.
After being told on several occasions that she was not in labour, and minutes earlier their assertion that her water bag did not burst, everything changed within seconds. Ms Wangya said that another staff member who appeared to be taking over the shift came into the ward at approximately 16:30hrs, and from the time she has been visiting the hospital to the time she lost her baby, that woman was the most pleasant and professional member of staff who ever dealt with her.
Ms. Wangya said that staff member took her into the labour room and did an ultrasound to see if the baby was ok, and that confirmed that she (Ms Wangya) was indeed leaking and that her water bag had burst. This is despite the previous checks done by two other persons, who advised that the water bag was not burst.
Ms Wangya said she was informed that the water was becoming less, and that the bag was beginning to paste onto the skin of the unborn infant. She was again told that she would be monitored, since the baby was already turned down. The member of staff was able to feel the hair of the baby when a check was made.
The expectant mother was also informed by the very pleasant and professional staff member that she may be ready to give birth shortly from that time, and she was going to be monitored to see if she would be able to deliver the baby normally; but should there be any signs that could lead to complications, she would have to be cut.
That staff member was about to check the heart rate of the baby when another woman went into labour and she turned her attention to that woman, sending Ms Wangya out of the labour room into another section of the department, where she was to be attended to next.
By then another woman came into the department and administered drips to Ms Wangya, while again promising to monitor her condition.
Ms Wangya said her worst experience started when she entered a room which is considered the area just before delivery, or before persons are sent to the labour room. Within seconds of arriving in that area, a woman who might have been the nurse in charge of the ward at that time shouted in her direction, saying, “There are no bed sheets in here! Why are you sending all these people here?!”
Nevertheless Ms Wangya went to a bed and lay down, after which a young nurse came to her bedside, checked her pressure and the baby’s heart rate, and reassured her that everything was ok.
Ms Wangya said she even heard her baby breathing normally. After being checked, she went back to lie down when she suddenly began feeling some pains and was advised by the young male nurse how to breathe at the onset of the pain.
While the male nurse was still advising her what to do, the rude nurse, who was allegedly looking over the ward, sent him and another nurse out of the department.
NURSE IGNORES CRY FOR HELP
Despite the pains Ms Wangya was feeling, and her efforts to get the nurse to attend to her, that nurse allegedly just sat at her desk reading a newspaper, completely ignoring Ms Wangya’s cries for help as she was obviously going into labour.
Ms Wangya recalled that as her pains increased in intensity, she began making noise, and the nurse then started shouting at her and telling her that she was not supposed to behave like that because she was not really feeling any pain. Ms Wangya claimed the nurse even told her, “As a matter of fact, you better get up and walk about, because I know you are not feeling any pain”.
The woman said she complied because, as much as the nurse was displaying a total lack of interest in her despite her advanced stage, she thought it was best to do as the nurse was advising. She said that when she told the nurse that she knew nothing about labour pains; the nurse continued screaming at her.
According to Ms. Wangya, she was shouting and crying for pain even as the nurse ignored her and continued reading her newspaper; then she began to feel really bad, by which time she had returned to the bed.
She said she suddenly felt three little flutters in her belly, and all the pains immediately disappeared. She related that after the three little flutters, she lay on the bed in a semi-paralysed state, quiet and unable to even move; and that apparently got the attention of the “newspaper” nurse, who approached the bed and asked her why she was so quiet.
As the woman touched her tummy, it hurt, even if the touch was with the little finger. At that point, the other professional nurse came into the ward, and when she realised that Ms Wangya was not able to move and was in intense pain, she brought a machine by the bedside to do some checks on the baby.
The checks revealed that the baby was not breathing, and when she questioned the “newspaper” nurse, that nurse said that the baby was breached. Ms Wangya said the ‘professional’ nurse informed the ‘newspaper’ nurse that it was impossible for the baby to be breached when she had earlier checked it and realised that it was already in the position to be delivered, either by pushing or if necessary, cutting.
Ms. Wangya said she was told that she had a complication, and that her baby had died inside of her. She was further informed that with the baby dead inside of her, it was necessary for her to be taken to the theatre to have the baby removed from her, since it was now a life-threatening situation for her.
Wangya said the professional nurse accompanied her to the operation theatre, and stayed there with her. She said that when she awoke after the operation, she was again informed that the baby was dead, but her efforts to see the baby from then on were futile, and it was only on Monday that she was able to see the child.
She remained in recuperation for almost two days, and while there, she was visited by many nurses, who all expressed shock and dismay that she had lost her baby, especially since some of those very nurses who visited her had done checks on her and her baby and had determined that it was a case of “so far so good”.
How the woman moved from a state of almost delivering a live baby girl to delivering a stillbirth was upsetting to some of the nurses, who questioned what really went wrong. Several other patients in the ward were also disturbed by that development, this newspaper was told.
The public relations officer of the hospital confirmed the incident but declined to comment when contacted by this newspaper.
According to the distraught Ms Wangya, she was unable to give birth to a living baby because of the negligence of a nurse, who preferred to read the newspaper instead of heed her agonising cries for assistance.
Since word of her loss got to management of the GPHC, the public relations officer has been in constant contact with her and her husband, and has been trying to “comfort” her.
She said the woman has been displaying much interest in the matter, and has even assisted her in getting certain things sorted out with respect to the handing over of the child’s body to the family for burial.
The Guyana Chronicle has been informed that, although the mother of the baby did not die, this latest incident is engaging the attention of the hospital, like every other case of stillbirth. However, based on the information provided to the hospital’s management leading up to the actual death of the child, it has caused the management to place even more emphasis on this case, as it is considered a case of gross negligence on the part of the nurse who preferred to read the newspaper instead of engaging herself in a duty for which she is being paid from the public treasury to do.
