A 77-year-old Singaporean elderly man, who shared the same ward with another patient later confirmed to be carrying the Covid-19 virus, was reported to have contracted the virus too. This was disclosed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) yesterday (6 Mar).

MOH said that the 77-year-old, Case 126, had been in the same ward as Case 109 in Singapore General Hospital (SGH) last Saturday and Sunday (29 Feb and 1 Mar).

“Case 126 is a 77 year-old male Singapore Citizen who has no recent travel history to affected countries and regions. He was confirmed to have COVID-19 infection on 5 March afternoon and is currently warded in an isolation room at NCID,” MOH said in a statement.

“Case 126 had been in the same ward as Case 109 at Singapore General Hospital from 29 February to 1 March, before Case 109 had been confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.”

MOH added, “As part of enhanced precautions, patients who have acute respiratory infection will be placed in wards with greater separation between patients to minimise the risk of infection.”

Case 109 works at Fish Mart Sakuraya at 154 West Coast Road and lives at Everton Park. He reported onset of symptoms on 25 Feb and sought treatment at a clinic on 27 and 28 Feb. He was finally warded in SGH on 29 Feb sharing the same ward with Case 126. However, at the point in time, case 109 had not been tested positive for Covid-19 virus. He was only confirmed to be infected with the virus on Monday (2 Mar) afternoon.

SGH to review its processes

MOH director of medical services Kenneth Mak said it is still investigating the possibility of Covid-19 infection between Case 109 and 126 occurring in the same ward. He said, “We have asked SGH to look into their processes to make sure that there were no lapses, no breaches of their processes and to ensure that patient safety is not compromised.”

SGH’s head of infectious diseases Tan Thuan Tong defended that patients who do not meet case definitions for Covid-19 but have respiratory tract infections are put in designated wards to protect other patients at hospitals.

“The reason why (Case 126) was in the same ward was (that) as part of the enhanced precautions, patients who have acute respiratory infection will be placed in wards with greater separation between patients to minimise the risk of infection,” Tan said.

Case 126 and 109 were put in the same ward before the latter was tested positive for Covid-19.

He added that in such wards, each bed is almost 3m apart. “In this ward, we also ask patients to put on masks, we ask them to practise social distancing,” he said. “Moving forward, I think we will look at our processes.”

To assure the public, Tan said another patient who shared the ward with Case 126 and 109 is currently well.

Meanwhile, the wife of Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, Ivy Ng who is the Group CEO of SingHealth overseeing SGH, remains mum.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Minister Josephine Teo: My mother an ex-policewoman who can look after my kids

Yesterday (2 Mar), at a police event which celebrated 70 years of…

Singapore Government: No need to wear mask if you are well

Last Friday, Reuters reported that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the…

Almost half of CPF members in 2016 cohort can’t meet Minimum Sum – can only withdraw up to $5,000

Hidden among the many written replies to Parliamentary questions posed last week…

舆论:保障人民,还是维护自家人?

政治拘留者、人权律师张素兰撰文于本社英语站 只要人民行动党在位越久,严刑峻法只会越发令人窒息。 《2009年公共秩序法令》以及《2016年司法(保护)法案》就是最好例子,它们不是为了捍卫人民或司法公义,反而是保护政府免受批评。 遗憾的是,法院容许这些法规的荒谬定义:一个人也可以构成“非法集会”,行为艺术也被当作“非法游行”。没有构成任何公共财产损坏,只是张贴海报都可以被告“破坏公物”,面对监禁和罚款。 即使对于个人来说,都没有言论自由的空间,这种恶法还可以糟糕到什么程度? 就在今年4月1日愚人节,律政部长提呈长达81页的《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》,在国会一读,不过他可没在开玩笑。 这是有史以来,但恐怕不会是最后一次,所有的部长和他们的政府机构同侪、公务员,只要冠以“主管当局”之名,就可以正正当当地对着所有个人、媒体机构、网络平台指点江山,发出更正指示修改他们所谓的真相。 只要他们相信任何影像、文章或贴文“违反公共利益”,就可以下令撤下、封锁之。 “公共利益”的定义如此广泛,连“导致公众对任何政府机构的信心减弱”都得严加防范。 甚至这些部长或公务员不需要聆听相关人员或机构的解释,就可以发出指示,“违规者”要做的,就只能服从,否则面对严苛的罚款或坐牢刑罚。但是,若当权者决策时有判断失误,却不必然要负责。 虽然在防止假消息法条文中,有提及个人如果不满意部长发出的更正指示,可以对部长上诉。可是又有哪位部长愿意承认自己的判断失误? 律政部长还坚称,法庭会是最终的仲裁者,但依据司法的精神,为何不把法庭的裁决权限放在首位或至少第二位?…