View report page

296
(ii) That expenditure in the current financial year not exceeding
the specified sum by the Inner London Borough Councils on behalf
of the Authority for new equipment in school dental surgeries be
authorised.
(iii) That the Councils be asked to make provision in their
estimates for 1967-8 for their respective proportions of the agreed
further expenditure at the surgeries on furniture and equipment,
high speed drills (or aerotors) and compressors where not already
provided and so far as necessary on improved resuscitation apparatus
and electric amalgamators, X-ray machines, waiting room furniture
and replacement of anaesthetic apparatus.
14. That approval be given to the provision in 1966-7 of two
mobile dental clinics and, in principle, to the provision of four
more in 1967-8.
15. That the Finance Sub-Committee be asked to approve a
drawing on the revenue provisional sum for the year 1966-7 for the
purchase of two mobile dental clinics for use in the Authority's
school dental service.
Affects on the Borough School Dental Services of the implementation
of the I.L.E.A. recommendations are given below,
seriatim.
General Policy
1. School Dental Inspections
At the Council's meeting, the P.S.M.O., although enthusiastically
in favour of the recommendation, cautiously referred to it as a
'counsel of perfection'. To avoid useless massive school dental
inspections, realistically, the extent of inspections undertaken should
be strictly proportional to the staff available for dealing with the
resultant treatments. Therefore, as a first step, it was decided to
concentrate on the '5 year old' school entrants and to examine as
many of these as treatment facilities in school clinics permitted.
Consequently, as was to be expected, the numbers of school dental
inspections carried out in 1966 though relatively small were commensurate
with the facilities available. However, a simple streamlined
but efficient system of school dental inspections was established
enabling immediate advantage to be taken of an anticipated improvement
in the staffing situation which would lead, ultimately, to
dental supervision of every child throughout school life. This new
system in no way affected the management of school children of all
ages under the existing 'SHS 59 Scheme' where parents opted for
treatment at our clinics. Although as many children as possible were
seen in accordance with the 'SHS 59 Scheme', this non-selective
approach to dental health proved, on the whole, unsuccessful in that
the influx of patients was beyond the Service's control and this led to
frustrating bottlenecks, delays and parental disappointment.