Request to clarify violations
Regarding the denunciations of Ms. Tran Thi Hang - nurse of the Traditional Medicine Department, Gia Lai Provincial Central General Hospital, verification has been carried out and Conclusion No. 1901/KL-BVDKTT has been issued on the results of denunciation resolution.
Based on the content of the complaint, the explanation of the accused, the verification results, related documents and evidence, and comparison with legal regulations, the hospital concluded that Ms. Tran Thi Bich Lien - Head Nurse of the Department of Traditional Medicine, the accused - had some violations in the process of performing her duties.
Explaining to the hospital, Ms. Lien admitted that she had incorrectly marked the workload for some employees, including the case of doctor V.T.B. Y who took leave or sick leave but was still marked to go to work.
The verification results also showed that the department leader and staff confirmed that the monitoring work record at the department and the work record submitted to the hospital had different contents.
The hospital determined that Ms. Lien had incorrectly graded 13/15 employees, causing a total difference of 165 working days compared to reality in 2024 and the first 8 months of 2025. This was unanimously implemented by the department collective.
Regarding the use of accounts on the hospital management system (HIS), the hospital concluded that Ms. Lien and the department collective agreed to use the accounts of retired doctors for nurses to enter medical orders for support. This behavior was identified as not in accordance with regulations on professional decentralization and professional responsibilities, violating professional procedures, and needs to be reviewed and learned from experience...
After the hospital's conclusion, the Gia Lai Provincial Department of Health requested the hospital to urgently report and explain; in which it is necessary to clarify whether incorrect marking has led to payment of salaries, allowances or other regimes that are not in accordance with regulations or not.
The Department of Health also requested to determine the causes and responsibilities of collectives and individuals related to incorrect grades at the Faculty of Traditional Medicine; assess the extent of violations and propose handling measures according to regulations.
Exposing inconsistencies between two texts
Implementing the direction of the Department of Health, Gia Lai Provincial Central General Hospital has issued an explanatory report.
According to the report, through comparison, there is a difference between the timekeeping table stored at the faculty and the timekeeping table submitted to the Department of Organization and Personnel, with a total difference of 165 working days of 13/15 officials.
However, the hospital believes that the marking board stored at the department is just a draft, without signatures, without seals, so it is not legally valid to serve as a basis for calculating salaries or determining violations. Therefore, there is not enough basis to conclude that incorrect marking has affected the payment of salaries, allowances and related regimes.
According to the hospital, the existence of two different timekeeping tables reflects the lack of tightness in administrative records management, showing laxness in internal inspection and supervision, affecting the effectiveness of the unit's management work.
The hospital determined that the responsibility belonged to Ms. Lien - the person directly marking the time; the department leader was jointly responsible for not promptly detecting and rectifying.
Regarding Ms. Lien, the hospital requested self-criticism, deep lessons learned and is considering the extent of the violation to propose forms of handling according to regulations.
For leaders and collectives of departments and hospitals, it is required to conduct collective reviews and rectify administrative management, records of timekeeping, and professional decentralization.
The hospital also acknowledged shortcomings in management and internal inspection and said that it has directed departments and rooms to implement remedial measures to prevent recurrence.
Notably, the explanatory report sent to the Department of Health of the hospital revealed unconsistent contents with Conclusion No. 1901 issued by the unit itself earlier.
In Conclusion No. 1901, the hospital determined that there were violations based on the content of the denunciation, the explanation of the accused, the verification results, related documents and evidence, and the comparison of legal regulations.
In particular, the accused himself admitted that the timekeeping was not true to reality. Meanwhile, leaders and staff in the faculty also confirmed the existence of two timekeeping tables with different contents.
However, in the explanatory report sent to the Department of Health, the hospital argued that the attendance record stored at the department was not legally valid enough to serve as a basis for determining violations and related consequences.
This shows that in the same case, two documents issued by the hospital itself are not consistent in evaluating evidence and determining violations. This lack of consistency needs to be clarified by competent authorities.
