View report page

43
from. That there is reason to believe that of the so-called "return''
cases, some have been due to the re-introduction of infection into
households owing to the disturbance of insufficiently disinfected clothes,
etc., left at home and stored away during the patient's stay in hospital.
(b) That it is desirable that those sanitary authorities in the Metropolitan
district who have not yet provided themselves with steam
disinfectors should be urged to do so with the least possible delay;
and, further, that the authorities who still entrust the work of disinfection
to contractors should be advised to discontinue the practice,
and to have the work carried out by responsible officials.
With the second conclusion every one who has
studied the matter must agree, but it is not possible
to accept the first without much reservation.
It will be noticed that, by inadvertence or otherwise,
the conclusion is limited to "patients admitted
to the Board's hospitals," a limitation which is, to
say the least, very unfortunate. As already stated,
the Committee give no information as to the
proportion which the "return" cases bear to
discharges during the several periods into which
they divided the cases. The average of 1 case
to every 285 discharges, mentioned above, refers to
the two years 1893 and 1894. In the four halfyears
included therein there were 106 "return"
cases; but in the one half-year of 1895 there were
49 such cases—i.e., if the cases continued at that
rate for two years there would be 196 "return"
cases on record as against 106.
Having regard to the fact that (at all events as
far as Paddington has been concerned) the return
cases have occurred in the smaller tenements, there
is an inherent improbability of such infection having