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
Kensington 1893
The annual report on the health, sanitary condition, &c., &c., of the Parish of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington for the year 1893
This page requires JavaScript
143
DUPLICATE NOTIFICATION.
In September, a circular communication was received
from the Rotherhithe Vestry, calling attention to the fact
that, occasionally, two or more medical men report the same
case of infectious disease, each claiming and receiving the
statutory fee for so doing. Complaint was made that the
Asylums Board "permit the dual, triple, or any numerical
notifications " of the same case. It was suggested that the
Board might have their attention called to the subject, and
" that they be requested to allow a single notification in each
case to be sufficient." The ground for this suggestion was,
that " dual or triple notification is not fair " to the sanitary
district, " as it makes the list "(of notifications) greater than
what it really ought to be, so that the return is ncorrect return of the number of actual cases." It was held,
moreover, to be unreasonable to " pay two or three times
over for the same thing." The Rotherhithe Vestry therefore
requested to be favoured with the views of the several
sanitary authorities, " so that united action may be taken to
bring the matter to the notice of the Asylums Board." Your
Vestry having referred the communication to the Works and
Sanitary Committee for consideration, I reported thereon,
at the request of the Committee, pointing out in the first
instance, that the Asylums Board have no jurisdiction in the
matter. It is the local Sanitary Authority that receives the
notification certificates and forwards copies of them to the
Board, as the Act directs. They also pay the statutory fees
for the certificates, and in due course claim repayment
thereof from the Board, in conformity with the provisions of
section 55 (4) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
Unless evidence is forthcoming that the notification has been
improperly made, the fee is legally and properly payable to
each notifying practitioner, seeing that the Act requires
" every medical practitioner attending on, or called in to visit
the patient" suffering from an infectious disease, to " send to