Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Georgetown Public Hospital (GPHC) Allan Johnson yesterday denied allegations that Director of Nursing Services Sister Colleen Hicks had been insubordinate toward him.
This comes several days after recommendations were made to the GPHC Board of Directors to have Hicks sent on administrative leave to facilitate an investigation into the allegations against her.
It has been reported that nurses and doctors have signed a petition for her removal. This, according to reports, arose from claims of Hicks continuously dismantling the clinical team at the hospital and her alleged failure to assign the nurses under her command to departments of the hospital that have a demand for nurses.
It was further stated that based on the complaints received, the movement of nurses continues to affect the delivery of service in some departments as the nursing population at the hospital is already stretched thin.
The petition for Hicks’ removal was said to have garnered over 150 signatures.
Although he confirmed that Hicks was issued with a letter informing her of the Board’s decision to send her on leave, Johnson was quick to point out that, contrary to reports in the media, there was no issue of her being insubordinate.
Choosing not to elaborate, Johnson simply indicated that communication between him and Hicks was not an issue as she responded accordingly when required.
Asked about the length of leave given to Hicks, the CEO explained that the length of time was not stated as it is to facilitate the investigation.
Meanwhile, despite several attempts, this newspaper was unable to contact Hicks for a comment on the issue.
Addressing the concerns raised, Chairman of the GPHC Board Dr Max Hanoman told a press conference last Thursday that anything that affects patient care will have to be addressed.
Hanoman pointed out that the hospital appears to have a crisis between the doctors and nurses and it has been recommended that the matron be placed on administrative leave, with full benefits, so that a full investigation could be launched into the basis of the claims.
At that time, he pointed out that as Chairman of the board, he has no authority to send anyone on leave, since the functions of the hospital and those actions rest with the CEO.
Hanoman also explained that the matron was aware of the recommendation and had asked about the reasons behind it. “I spoke to her at the meeting and she said she was going on leave and I asked her if she would be averse to going on administrative leave and she wanted to know the reasons.
Of course anybody would want to know. There are factions that support her and those that don’t and we cannot look at factions we have to look at patient care and anything that affects patient care will have to be looked at,” he said.
Additionally, Hanoman explained that when the board had a meeting, it had requested an update from Johnson and he had stated that he had written to the matron several times and she had refused to follow the instructions.
He said if the CEO reports to the board that someone is not following instructions, then the board is responsible for looking into it. “Let’s not be rash. Let’s investigate the reasons for this and only then can we come to a solution,” he said.
Hanoman emphasized that even if the matron is sent on an administrative leave, it does not mean that her services would be terminated, and such a decision will only come about if the results of the investigation warrant same.
Hanoman explained that the administrative leave can only begin when an independent body has been formed to take on the investigation. “You just don’t send somebody on administrative leave,” he added.
Asked who would serve in Hicks’ place, Hanoman explained that there are many other suitable persons who can fill the position.
Hicks has been no stranger to controversy since her appointment as Nursing Director. Last year, she had locked horns with previous hospital administrator Michael Khan, which saw him terminating her contract after her three-month probationary period ended.
Khan had stated that he took that action because she refused to respond to a letter from him. Hicks was supposed to give a response in 48 hours, he had said but “fifteen days have passed and she still hasn’t responded to me. It’s gross insubordination.”
She was subsequently reinstated.
