London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Hounslow 1966

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hounslow]

This page requires JavaScript

Central Nervous System

Anencephalus1
Hydrocephalus3
Microcephalus1
Spina bifida6
Eye, ear
Accessory auricle1
Defects of ear NOS1
Alimentary system
Cleft lip6
Cleft palate5
Rectal and anal atresia3
Heart and great vessels
Other defects of heart and great vessels1
Congenital heart disease NOS6
Respiratory system
Defects of respiratory system NOS2
Uro-genital system
Other defects of kidney and ureter1
Hypospadias3
Other defects of male genitalia3
Defects of uro-genital system NOS1
Limbs
Polydactyly5
Dislocation of hip1
Talipes23
Other defects of hand2
Other defects of pelvic girdle and lower limb2
Defects of lower limb NOS1
Other skeletal
Defects of skull and face1
Spinal curvature1

Other systems

Defects of muscles2
Other defects of skin (including
ichthyosis congenita)4
Exomphalos1
Other malformations
Mongolism5
Multiple malformations NOS1
NOS—Not otherwise specified

For our own purposes, the only children we
follow up are those whose defect is likely to be a
handicap to them in their future progress.
As the notifications are made within the first
48 hours of birth, often before a doctor has
examined the baby, it is possible that a
considerable number of congenital defects are not
notified by this method, notably such conditions
as pyloric stenosis, fibrocystic disease, various
congenital heart defects and various renal defects.
We therefore still rely upon the hospital
paediatricians for their co-operation with regard
to notifying these defects.
Observation Register
I am grateful to Dr D G Gooding for the
following preliminary report—
'In the summer of 1965 a scheme was developed
in liaison with the consultant obstetricians and
paediatricians at the West Middlesex Hospital
and Chiswick Maternity Hospital whereby the
department health was given access to hospital
obstetric records.
The hospitals state on their birth notification
form whether or not they consider that any child
born may need further observation due to pre,
peri or post natal hazard, and therefore is at
greater risk than normal of developing a handicap.
Between June 1965 and the end of December
1966 a total of 1666 children were notified as
being in need of further observation. It is
interesting that only about 898 of these cases were
actually followed up at local infant welfare
clinics.
39