View report page

80
In accordance with the usual practice X was visited at home,
and found to have a discharge from the nose. A specimen of
this discharge was examined bacteriologically for diphtheria and
a negative result obtained. It was considered, therefore, that
the child might mix with others. A few days later another
child Y in the same house, but of a different family, was notified
to have scarlet fever, and was removed to hospital.
For this case of scarlet fever no possible source could be
ascertained.
Under the circumstances, as X had a nasal discharge, it
was thought just possible that X might have had scarlet fever
in hospital and had infected the second child. A letter was,
therefore, sent to the medical superintendent of the hospital
asking whether the child X, the diphtheria patient, had contracted
scarlet fever in hospital. The reply was in the affirmative.
The patient X was now again examined, and still found to
have a nasal discharge. The mother was given fresh instructions,
and no further case of infection was traced to X.
It is very possible that if the Medical Superintendent had
remembered to notify to the Medical Officer of Health the
scarlet fever contracted by X in hospital that the case of Y would
not have occurred.
The cases examined after their return home from hospital
had the following complications: Discharge from nose 16, sore
throat 1, discharging ears 2, enlarged neck glands 19, conjunctivitis
2, shortness of breath 2, anæmia 1, general weakness
10.
DIPHTHERIA.
The number of cases notified was 150, of which 24 were
subsequently sent home as not suffering from the disease, leaving
126 true cases.
There were 19 deaths, so that 15.1 per cent, of all the cases
died of the disease.