Mater Hospital and the Sunday Tribune

Complaint

The Chief Executive of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Mr Brian Conlan, complained that statements in two articles in the Sunday Tribune of 3 August 2008 about the treatment and care of three patients in the hospital contained a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations which resulted in what he believed to be a reckless and unbalanced report, in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice. Mr Conlan asserted in particular that the front page headline “Mater hospital patients had gauze shoved down throats”, was not only untrue, but had the effect of undermining public confidence in the hospital. It asked the paper to publish a clarification, together with an apology to its staff and patients.

Mr Conlan also complained under Principle 3 of the Code of Practice (Fairness and Honesty) at what he said was the unfairness of the newspaper approaching the hospital’s public relations agents on the Friday afternoon preceding publication, which also happened to be the August bank holiday weekend, and at the fact that the approach was not made by the journalist to whom the article was subsequently attributed.

In correspondence between the newspaper and the complainant, the newspaper did not accept that the facts of the case generally were misrepresented, or that they produced a reckless or unbalanced report. It maintained that, with the exception of the headline statement, the accuracy of the statements about which the hospital had complained was supported by an independent report of an incident involving one of the patients and by what it had been told by the family of that patient who had been approached on a confidential basis by a nurse at the hospital. The nurse who was the family’s source of information has since died.

The newspaper accepted that no employee of the Mater Hospital shoved any material down the throats or mouths of patients as stated in its front page headline, and that this strong assertion was not supported by the articles published in that edition of the newspaper or by the aforementioned independent report, a copy of which was in their possession when the article was written. It offered to publish a correction on this point, should a text be agreed.

Although discussions on the text of a proposed correction reached an advanced stage, they could not be concluded mainly because of a fundamental disagreement on the placing of any proposed correction, which the hospital insisted should be on the same page as the original article – the front page – to reflect the headline treatment of the original story. The newspaper rejected this request on the grounds that the hospital’s position had already been adequately reflected in the articles concerned.

Decision

Two substantial articles were involved in this complaint: the lead article on page 1 of the newspaper and an associated article on page 12. The newspaper’s front page headline “Mater hospital patients had gauze shoved down throats” was the subject of a draft correction offered by the newspaper in response to an earlier draft prepared by the hospital.

Principle 1.3 of the Code of Practice states that when appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence. A newspaper's commitment to publish such a statement may constitute sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve a complaint about a significant inaccuracy under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, and would not consequently require a formal decision by the Press Ombudsman that the Code had been breached. However, in considering whether such an offer constitutes sufficient remedial action, the Press Ombudsman has to decide not only on the adequacy of the wording, but also on whether the placement of the item concerned affords it due prominence.

No allegation in relation to a hospital could be more serious than an allegation of malpractice or negligence on its part. In the light of the newspaper's admission that its headline on page 1 was not justified by the rest of the article or by the independent report, the opinion of the Press Ombudsman is that the hospital's contention that any agreed statement should be published on the newspaper's front page was a reasonable one. This takes account of the fact that although the findings of the independent report favourable to the hospital were reported by the newspaper as part of its coverage, the only material from that report featured on the front page was material critical of the hospital or unsubstantiated allegations recorded in – but not endorsed by – the report. In these circumstances, the newspaper's offer to publish an agreed statement on one of the next three pages did not constitute sufficient remedial action to remedy a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice in this case. Mr Conlan's complaint about a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice is therefore upheld.

Mr Conlan also complained under Principle 2 of the Code of Practice that the statement in the second paragraph of the article that a patient's family had received an official apology "after discovering that a staff member had lodged gauze in his mouth causing him to be 'blue and gasping for breath'" was an unconfirmed report presented as a fact.

The independent report, while accepting that it was not normal hospital practice for gauze to be placed in a patient’s mouth, found that the allegations made by the nurse to the family about the treatment of their family member were grossly exaggerated and that it was highly improbable that the treatment he had received was responsible for any acute episode or shortness of breath or major discomfort to him, given that he was receiving oxygen via a tracheotomy.

The opinion of the Press Ombudsman is that the decision by the newspaper to present the contested and unproven allegation about the effect of the gauze in the patient’s mouth as a fact in the first article, while relegating the independent report’s highly relevant findings about this allegation to the second article, amounted to a breach of Principle 2. Additionally, the presentation of this allegation – the use of the word ‘after’ both in the second paragraph of the first article and in the headline of the second - could have led readers to assume, as the hospital complained, that the hospital’s apology had been an admission of the truth of the allegation. The hospital apologised to the family, in accordance with a recommendation of the independent report, not for the aforementioned incident, but for the unacceptable and inappropriate manner in which the incident had been brought to their attention. This was clarified inadequately by the newspaper in a subsidiary headline on page 12.

The hospital’s complaint under Principle 3 about the fact that it had been contacted on the Friday before publication and by a reporter other than the reporter who had written the article is not upheld, as these practices in themselves do not constitute a breach of this Principle of the Code of Practice.

21 January 2009