London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Hackney 1932
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney]
This page requires JavaScript
92
Scarlet Fever or Scarlatina.—The number of cases of scarlet
fever notified during the year was 663. Thirty-two of the
patients notified as suffering from this disease were found, after
admission to hospital, not to be suffering from an infectious disease.
The actual number of cases of scarlet fever occurring in the Borough
during the year was, therefore, 631. This is an increase of 161 upon
the actual number of cases that occurred during 1931. The attackrate
for scarlet fever was 2.94 per 1,000 persons living, and for
England and Wales, 2.12.
The number of cases removed to hospital during the year was
601. This is equal to 95.2 percent. of the actual number of cases
which occurred in the Borough during the year.
The following table shows the distribution of scarlet fever in the Electoral Wards and Registration Sub-districts of the Borough:—
| Area. | No. of cases. | Attack-rate per 1,000 living. |
|---|---|---|
| The Borough | 631 | 2.94 |
| Wards:— | ||
| Stamford Hill | 115 | 3.19 |
| West Hackney | 50 | 2.77 |
| Kingsland | 39 | 1.89 |
| Downs | 45 | 2.35 |
| Clapton Park | 143 | 3.56 |
| Homerton | 128 | 3.93 |
| South Hackney | 52 | 2.34 |
| Hackney | 59 | 2.30 |
| Registration Sub-districts:— | ||
| North | 186 | 3.16 |
| Central | 141 | 2.81 |
| South-West | 181 | 3.47 |
| South-East | 123 | 2.30 |
It will be seen that scarlet fever was most prevalent in the
Clapton Park, Homerton and Stamford Hill Wards of the
Borough.
Five of the 631 cases of scarlet fever were patients in the
same family as a person who had, within the previous 28 days,
returned from hospital after having been treated for this disease.
Cases of this kind are called "return" cases, and careful
investigation is made in these cases with a view to ascertaining
whether there is any direct evidence that infection has been conveyed
by the discharged patient. No such evidence could be obtained in
regard to the 5 "return" cases.