It begins in late autumn 2020. At the Friedberg Hospital, more and more patients and staff are being tested positive for Corona. In the end there will be 63 employees and 54 patients. Deaths occur. For example, an old man is placed in the room with a patient who is coughing heavily. This is what a relative reports. As it turns out, the coughing roommate has Corona.
All this happens in a clinic that was considered a so-called “non-Covid hospital” and therefore had no Covid ward. Only sparse information about the outbreak is made public. Internally, however, the wires run hot. The State Office for Health (LGL) sends its own examiners to assess the situation in the clinic. They list serious deficiencies in an internal interim report.
The authorities promise clarification
By this time, some patients had already died. And the relatives are concerned with one question: Did the deceased become infected in the clinic? The outbreak lasted around two months, and the responsible authorities promised to clarify the matter. Now, more than two years later, the district office presents a final report.
The conclusion of the report: There were no errors within the clinic. At least none that could be classified as an administrative offence. The testing of employees on a voluntary basis was lawful. Contrary to what the LGL claims, there were enough hygiene specialists. And using improperly labeled disinfectants is not reproachable behavior. These are the results that were presented to the works committee of the district council.
Criticisms that fall under the table
However, the BR only has documents that reveal more points of criticism. Allegations not mentioned in the district office’s final report. Above all, it is about what the examiners of the LGL found out in their final technical report. Their findings were forwarded to the district office.
According to the examiner’s report, the communication between the ward doctors and the hygiene department was “incorrect” within the clinic – as was the agreement between the clinic and the health department of the Aichach-Friedberg district – i.e. the authority that has now compiled the final report.
The LGL complains that the question of the extent to which people in the clinic were infected with corona was not sufficiently investigated: “Transmissions via employees were not questioned or not recognized,” says the LGL report. An earlier internal letter is even clearer: For example, the infection of a doctor was justified by the fact that “she had children and was probably therefore tested positive”. The case was not examined.
“Hygiene concepts incorrect because outdated”
According to the LGL report, hygiene concepts and service instructions were also deficient: Of the 17 documents checked, “most were not up to date and in some cases incorrect because they were outdated”. The revision of the documents every three years does not seem appropriate in the context of a pandemic.
The district office explains that all points of criticism were examined impartially and intensively by three different employees. There is no evidence of poor communication. According to the clinic, there are “far more hygiene concepts and service instructions than the 17 documents mentioned. They were sent in a satisfactory form,” the office told BR.
One important document is still incomplete
The important question remains as to what extent transmissions have been investigated in the hospital itself. The system prescribed for this was only introduced after the outbreak, according to the district office. However, there were Excel lists with which the infections were documented.
It remains unclear why the LGL never mentions these and whether they are sufficient from a technical point of view. The planned documentation on the so-called “line list” is in any case not complete to this day, the district office concedes.
How many patients have died
A total of 53 patients who tested positive were examined, according to the clinic in its own investigation. 15 of them contracted Corona in the hospital, five of whom died. In 16 patients the infection was rated as “unclear”. Of these, seven patients died, according to the evaluation of the clinic. In some cases, the LGL “cannot understand” the figures.
The cases of 60 infected employees were also examined by the clinic. The result: All infections were rated as “unclear”, in no case does the hospital see an infection in the hospital as proven. The district office justifies this with different definitions of when an infection is considered to be domestic.
Several criminal charges against the clinic
Several relatives have filed criminal charges after the infections and deaths. The BR has investigation documents from the Augsburg criminal police. Several patients and relatives report independently that doctors and nurses were in the clinic without a mask or that hygiene was poor.
The head of the couple’s clinics, which also includes the Friedberg hospital, has always denied all allegations. He explained through a law firm that nurses and doctors “of course wore masks”. All protective measures prescribed by law or recommended by the relevant professional societies were “continuously applied in order to prevent patients from being infected with the corona virus as far as possible”.
Prosecutor opens investigation
A comprehensive corona protection concept was developed and established as early as spring 2020 – i.e. right at the beginning of the pandemic. The wearing of FFP2 masks was enforced – although the continuous wearing was classified as inadmissible at the time. Despite all protective measures, there can be no absolute certainty in the case of viral infections.
The public prosecutor’s office has discontinued all investigations. There is no sufficient suspicion to justify an indictment. The district office also emphasizes this again and again. However, the public prosecutor also made it clear that their investigations were only about criminal activity, which is difficult to prove in the case of virus infections. It has not been finally clarified whether there were errors in the clinic. The daughter of a deceased calls on the public prosecutor’s office to reopen the investigation. A corresponding application has been submitted.
