View report page

- 63 -
uncorrected, largely in order not to discourage notification, even though
the evidence adduced during investigations strongly suggested that none
of the twelve associated patients should be strictly classified as food
poisoning sufferers. Bacteriological examinations of faecal specimens
from patients and contacts, and of suspected food where available, were
negative in respect of all the incidents. In each outbreak, there were
others at risk, either in the same home or from the sources where
suspected articles of food were obtained, but none of these was affected.
Each of the outbreaks is briefly described below :-
(a) Two adults (Male 30: Female 30) suffered an abdominal upset
after eating continental sausage.
(b) Two adults (Male 26: Female 25) were ill after eating
a meal of hamburgers.
(c) Two adults (Females 57 and 88) were ill after giving
a party at home. Seven other people at risk remained well. The younger
patient had recently had a breast removed and was still undergoing x-ray
therapy, and the other patient was under treatment for a gall bladder
condition.
(d) Three people (Males 34 and 3: Female 29) out of a family
of four had an abdominal upset over a short period. This was possibly
due to a gross contamination of some article of food by organisms harmless
in lesser numbers (although conditions of food storage and preparation
were good); or, more probably, to a virus infection.
(e) Three people (Male 9: Females 40 and 16) out of a family
of seven were ill, but the illness did not spread even though the mother
was affected.
Single cases
In addition to the outbreaks referred to above, there were fifty
single cases of food poisoning notified. In twenty-three of these, no
causative agent was identified, but in the remaining twenty-seven cases,
the identified agents were as follows :-
Agent Cases
Salmonella typhi-murium 25
Salmonella newport 1
Salmonella dublin 1
None of the cases due to unidentified agents was admitted to
hospital, but twenty-one of the twenty-seven cases where a causative
agent was found were treated in hospital.
The problem of corrected figures also arises in the single cases
where no agent was identified. Many of these cases in 1959 appeared to
be doubtful on investigation. Two examples taken from this year illustrate
the problem. In one case, it was found that an ulcer patient occasionally
rebelled against the strict diet; in fact, the patient had been notified
in a previous year for a similar indiscretion. In a second instance,
the history was strongly suggestive of sub-acute appendicitis to which
the attention of the medical practitioner was drawn.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Smallpox
No case of smallpox was notified in the borough during 1959.