Lies, lies ... all lies! This is the crux of the Louis Trichardt Memorial Hospital’s response to the Zoutpansberger’s front-page article regarding the seemingly deplorable state of affairs at the facility.

Serious shortcomings regarding hygiene and safety at this state hospital were brought to the newspaper’s attention by means of a leaked hospital board report, following a visit to the hospital by several board members on 17 July. The hospital's management, however, now seems to be in a state of denial, contesting the legality and even the actual existence of such a report.

Under the heading “A fishing expedition gone wrong”, the hospital’s deputy manager for communications and liaison services, Mr Kutelani Sigidi, issued a statement. In it, he says that the hospital's management “would like to put it on record that we remain unshaken and steadfast in our commitment to ensure that our clients continue to receive service of high quality notwithstanding the prophet of doom’s cheap peddling of malicious, fabricated rumours. We therefore want to put it on record that the spooky copy of a report on the state of the hospital has not been submitted to the hospital management.”

With regard to the above, the Zoutpansberger has it on good authority that such a report was indeed compiled, distributed to several board members, including the board’s chairman, Mr Percy Sinthumule, and even served before management during a board meeting on 23 August. The newspaper therefore finds it strange that, in its response, the hospital goes on to state that Mr Sinthumule is on record as having said: “The alleged report has never been commissioned by the hospital board [and] as such is deemed to be non-existent. We are aware of our legal obligations and our responsibilities and as such we shall continue to discharge them even in the midst of faceless agent provocateurs. The hospital board would like to state categorically that it continues to give an unwavering support to the hospital management under the visionary stewardship of Mrs Raulinga Connie as the Chief Executive Officer.”

In his statement, Sigidi then gives an explanation of hospital boards’ legal obligations with regard to the National Health Act which, among others, states that it is important that hospital boards are largely advisory governance structures for hospitals and have a mandate to act honestly in the best interest of the public and the users. “Through its skills mix, the board will advise the management of the organisation on processes for enhancing the organisation's reputation ...” the statement reads.

Apparently assuming that the report was leaked to the newspaper by a fellow hospital board member, the hospital then lashes out, stating that “... to therefore masquerade as a genuine hospital board member with a fictitious report is rather deplorable to say the least. A genuine hospital board therefore advises management accordingly, not through the abuses of access to the media.”

Although last week’s newspaper article highlighted numerous problems at the hospital regarding the findings of the “non-existent” report, the hospital addresses very few of these issues in its response. “We are as the hospital expected to keep two pints of emergency blood and as thus there is nothing untoward in the spooky findings. The hospital has out-sourced laundry services for over five years to date and as such we have no challenge as it relates to cleaning of hospital linen,” the statement reads.

With regard to apparent serious water shortages, or the complete lack of water at the hospital, the hospital responds by saying: “The hospital has seven tanks with the capacity to carry 65 000 litres of water beside the water it receives from the municipality. These water tanks are refilled timeously through our internal boreholes which are fully functional.”

The hospital also lashes out against the newspaper’s reference to the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health’s findings, following a visit to the hospital in August last year. In last week’s article, it is stated that several of the committee’s findings were similar to the troubling findings highlighted in the hospital board's "non-existent" report.

“Louis Trichardt Memorial Hospital was built in 1942. It has 52 officially approved usable beds. It was originally built to service the then predominantly white town of Louis Trichardt. The visit by the National Standing Committee on Health noted and appreciated how the hospital is performing now that it has to service all the surrounding villages notwithstanding the infrastructural challenges given its history. The reference to the fabricated Standing Committee findings is as such regrettable,” the statement reads. It goes on to state that the hospital went on to win the 2011 award for being the third cleanest public hospital in the Limpopo Province and “as such the reference to an unkempt and unhygienic state of hospital grounds is being economic with the truth,” the hospital states.

Sadly (or conveniently?) the hospital makes no reference in their response to the confirmation supplied in the article by the provincial spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Services, Ms Sinenhlanhla Gumede,  that the situation at the hospital, as indicated by the now contested hospital board report,  is an honest and true reflection of the situation at the facility. Neither does the hospital make any reference to the department’s evaluation committee’s visit to the hospital in May and their recommendation that the hospital must compile and submit an improvement plan to the department by 31 August. Surely one can ask: Who is now being economical with the truth?

Instead, the hospital statement goes on to say that: “The faceless messiah of the Louis Trichardt community, purporting to represent the hospital board has thus dismally failed to verify the actual state of affairs and in the process rubbished and discredit (sic) the hard work and commitment of men and women who are an integral part of the new cadre of a public service, striving to improve the health of our clients, and as such this has been a totally failed fishing expedition.” The statement concludes by saying: “The opinionated, rowdy, faceless peddler of lies aimed at misleading the community should then be exposed if responsible reporting is still the backbone of responsible journalism.”

In accepting the challenge to expose the “opinionated, rowdy, faceless peddler of lies aimed at misleading the community”, the Zoutpansberger submitted several follow-up questions regarding the “actual” situation at the hospital to Mr Sigidi. The newspaper asked the hospital, among other things, whether it denies receiving an inspection by hospital board members and whether it denies that a report was compiled after this visit. A copy of the Portfolio Committee on Health's findings, as submitted in parliament in March this year, was also forwarded to Mr Sigidi.

In this regard, he was asked to study the report and indicate whether the hospital still thinks the paper's reference to its findings were “fabricated?” Other questions, among others, related to the actual water situation at the hospital, medicine shortages, the availability of cleaning materials and antiseptics and access control at the hospital. In the spirit of transparency, the hospital was also asked whether they would allow an unmonitored in loco visit by the press to verify the actual situation at the hospital.

Sagidi’s response to this was: “You have in your article quoted extensively from the hospital board report and less on the visit by the portfolio committee and as such I will appreciate if you may also forward me a copy of the report in an effort to provide you with a detailed response. Until such copy is brought to our attention and its authenticity confirmed by all board members, in particular the chairperson and the secretary of the hospital board, its existence will remain suspect.”

In response to this, the Zoutpansbeger informed Sigidi that it is obvious that he is reluctant to answer questions by asking for a copy of a report already in their possession. A response from him on the follow-up questions was requested. No reply was received.