London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kensington 1929

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

The following table shows the number of cases notified in the various Wards in each four- * weekly period during 1929:—

District.Period No. 1.Period No. 2.Period No. 3.Period No. 4.Period No. 5.Period No. 6.Period No. 7.Period No. 8.Period No 9.Period No. 10.Period No. 11Period No 12.Period No. 13.
London109810841097101910599189559499731417200318091571
The Borough58383431323628262548466262
North Kensington25262423222723191541335251
South Kensington 331210810957107131011
Wards.
St. Charles4355768811071116
Golborne912106109991024202117
Norland87510273126388
Pembridge444235312131210
Holland4311134434223
Earl's Court63122112233
Queen's Gate10131112111
Redcliffe1224273141843
Brompton132311

Cases of mistaken diagnosis are not excluded from the above Table.
Forty-three patients notified as suffering from scarlet fever were found, after admission to
hospital, not to be suffering from any infectious illness at all, with the result that they were
returned home.
During the last two years there has been an increase in the number of scarlet fever cases,
but it can hardly be said that the disease existed in what might be described as epidemic form.
Throughout the year scarlet fever was mild in type, as is reflected in the fact that there was only
one fatal case. The deaths in the preceding years were four, none and two.
Four of the 526 cases of scarlet' fever notified 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. In addition, one of those developing the disease was a member of another family living
in the same house as a person who had been discharged from hospital less than 28 days previously
upon recovery from scarlet fever.
Cases of this kind are called "return" cases and very careful investigation was made in
each of the five, with a view to ascertaining the source of infection. No direct evidence that
the disease was contracted from the primary patients could be obtained in any of these "return"
cases.
The importance of proper isolation being effected is shown in the following case. A child
contracted scarlet fever and it was treated at home against advice. Subsequently, all the family
(four) developed the disease and had to be removed to hospital.
Diphtheria.—Three hundred and twenty-six cases of diphtheria were notified during the
year 290 of which were removed to hospital.

The following table shows the number of cases notified in the various Wards in each fourweekly period during 1929 :—

District.Period No. 1.Period No. 2.Period No. 3Period No. 4.Period No. 5.Period No. 6.Period No. 7.Period No. 8.Period No. 9.Period No. 10.Period No. 11Period No. 12Period No. 13.
London9028408058156806828036626401092135313651219
The Borough24433220172122151916492523
North Kensington1621231413914131412341815
South Kensington8229641282541578
Wards.8229641282541578
St. Charles35733144329104
Golborne26766555561157
Norland7533214361512
Pembridge456222113922
Holland13114531
Earl's Court2112121711
Queen's Gate18725112
Redcliffe341211211664
Brompton1612111

Cases of mistaken diagnosis are not excluded from the above Table.