"Hospital COVID Lockdown"

Following receipt of my further (Friday, 16 July) email submission regarding the St George Hospital lockdown (copied to the patient experience manager), the Ward 7A Oncology manager late that afternoon notified me that I could have a one-off visit on Sunday (18th), and that the matter would be further reviewed on Monday.

The hospital’s case is that there are other terminally ill persons in the hospital and they too have not been allowed any visitors. They suggest that such a ban on visiting the hospital is also a protection for those would-be visitors; indeed, at over 80 years of age, I need to contract COVID like I need a hole in the head, and there is no way I would ever knowingly expose myself to such risk, however, Ben is, apparently, imminently terminally ill (weeks if not only days, has been the suggestion), and Ben has just experienced 17 days without a visit from any family member. Indeed, had I not made my initial submission, I believe he would likely still be without visitors. Ben is 48 years of age but he is intellectually handicapped, effectively still a child, and I feel devastated that he must have been thinking that we had all abandoned him during that 17-day no-contact period!

Unfortunately, in Ben’s present condition it is not even practicable to attempt to have a conversation with him on the phone—regardless, I would rather hold his hand.

I accept that I feel a heavy-handed risk management strategy is currently unavoidable, but still, I believe every case should be considered on its merits and, given all the circumstances, and weighing the risks involved, in this particular case, to not allow me, his father, to also visit him daily, is cruel and borders on being unconscionable in my belief.

And I quote Paul Darcy, General Manager, St George Hospital, who, on Friday 16, in his response to my submission to Care Opinion Australia, noted “staff are advised to assess every situation on a case-by-case basis, especially for our palliative patients and their relatives".

I started drafting this email on Saturday, after receiving the hospital’s advice that I could now have a one-off visit on Sunday (18th). I have now had that visit—his sibling and I spent ~10 hours with Ben that day, until midnight—and I now await the hospital’s review of my status as an additional “designated visitor".

Now, I’ve already experienced one such life-ending experience at the Calvary Hospital Kogarah, over 10 years ago, when my second partner died as the end result of Lewy Body dementia; I know how comforting it was for me and, hopefully for her, that, at that time, the family was able to visit during her final five days.

In Ben’s case, there are only three immediate family members, his two parents and his brother.

Which brings me back to my one-off visit on Sunday with my son. After not seeing him for 21 days, I was shocked to see that Ben’s condition had deteriorated so greatly. Although Ben could squeeze my hand, he could not otherwise communicate. Indeed, I sensed that that period where it may only be days before he passes, was upon us.

I would question the hospital’s decision to, so heavy-handedly, cut off all visits to even those patients who are imminently terminally ill, without any advice I believe, as to how we may have been able to work around such a general ban on visitors, the end result of which was that Ben had no visitors at all for 17 days (21 days from me), when, earlier during that time when he was better, it would have been of continuing comfort to him—and us—had we been able to afford him such ongoing support. I simply cannot comprehend what must have been going through my child’s mind during that initial 17 days of no visits.

Further, I understand in-patient deaths at St George Hospital average four per month, that is, over any 30-day period, there may be four in-patients in or approaching the near-to-death state. Let’s allow that each of those patients may have four immediate family members, for a total of 16 persons. How could the allowance of continuing visiting rights to such a number of, I feel, suitably vetted family members possibly increase the risk—particularly those of a father to his dying son?

I believe the bureaucratic decision making involved in deciding visitation rights for such near-to-death patients is, I feel, unconscionable.

Regards.

Postscript:
Ben died at 10:00 the following morning, Monday, 19 July—no one from his family was there to hold his hand at the time. Again, the bureaucratic decisions made with respect to visitation rights for such near-to-death patients is, I feel, utterly unconscionable. Paradoxically, the hospital could not have been more considerate of visits by all members of Ben’s immediate family after Ben died.