View report page

94
Puerperal Fever and Puerperal Pyrexia Regulations, 1926.
These Regulations, which came into operation on the 1st October, 1920,
prescribed new forms for the notification of puerperal fever and required the
notification of cases of puerperal pyrexia, in addition to the present notification of
puerperal fever, thus placing an obligation upon medical practitioners to notify all
cases of pyrexia during the puerperium irrespective of the cause to which the
fever may be attributed.
In a circular, dated the 9th August, 1926, issued from the Ministry of Health
to Local Sanitary Authorities, it was pointed out that if this more complete
fication was to have practical value it should be supplemented by the provision,
when necessary, of facilities for assistance in diagnosis and for the treatment of
patients who are not able to secure adequate treatment for themselves.
In conformity with the suggestions of the Ministry, the Council made
ments
for the following facilities to be available: —
(a) Consultations with an obstetric specialist in connection with diagnosis
of suspected cases of puerperal fever or puerperal pyrexia.
(B) The nursing of cases of puerperal pyrexia.
(c) Bacteriological examinations in suspected cases of puerperal fever and
puerperal pyrexia.
Appropriate contributions towards the cost of such services are to be asked
for in cases where the patient or her relatives are in a position to contribute.
Notice was given to medical practitioners residing or practising in the Borough
of the duties imposed on them by the Regulations. A supply of notification forms
was also sent to them and information of the facilities provided for consultations,
nursing and bacteriological examinations.
Ophthalmia Neonatorum.
During the year 12 cases of ophthalmia neonatorum were brought to our
notice, 6 of which were notified in pursuance of the Public Health (Ophthalmia
Neonatorum) Regulations, 1914; 2 of the notifications were from doctors in private
practice and 4 from the Medical Officers of institutions. Three of these
tions were received as the result of correspondence, after the existence of the cases
had been brought to our notice.
In 6 cases notifications in accordance with the Regulations were not received.
of these, 3 were discovered by Health Visitors, 1 was ascertained from the death
returns, and information respecting the other 2 came from the London County
Council and the Metropolitan Asylums Board respectively.
Unless each case is notified to the local Medical Officer of Health, the public
will be ignorant of the real extent of the disease; the whole of the cases cannot be
followed up to ascertain the amount of permanent damage done to the eyesight,