London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Paddington 1905
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Paddington, Metropolitan Borough of]
This page requires JavaScript
24 fevEr.
The mortality rates for the Adjacent Districts will be found in Table 12. Rates below
that for the Borough were recorded in Westminster and Hampstead (0.02 in each cases
The highest rate (0.07) was recorded in Kensington and Willesden. After correction
sex-age differences in populations, the local rate (Table 20) becomes 0.02, and is lower the
that of any of the Adjacent Districts, Westminster excepted. The differences from the
standard rates are fairly great. Last year the greatest difference was that in Westmins
(0.14), Paddington coming next (0.12), and Kensington last (0.07).
TABLE 20.
Corrected Mortality—Enteric Fever.
| Standard Rate. | Correction Factor. | Corrected Rates. | Differences, 1905, from | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1905. | Mean, 1901-04. | Standard Rate. | Mean Rate. | ||||
| London | 0.14 | - | 0.04 | 0.08 | -0.10 | -0.04 | |
| Paddington | 0.14 | 0.99635 | 0.02 | 0.06 | -0.12 | -0.04 | |
| Kensington | 0.14 | 1.01853 | 0.07 | 0.06 | -0.07 | †0.01 | |
| Westminster | 0.15 | 0.93441 | 0.01 | 0.07 | - 0.14 | - 0.06 | |
| Marylebone | 0.14 | 0.98552 | 0.03 | 0.06 | - 0.11 | - 0.03 | |
| Hampstead | 0.14 | 0.99677 | 0.04 | 0.06 | - 0.10 | - 0.02 | |
| Willesden | 0.14 | 0.99887 | 0.06 | 0.05 | - 0.08 | † 0.01 | |
| TABLE 20. Corrected Mortality—Enteric Fever. | |||||||
| Standard Rate. | Correction Factor. | Corrected Rates. | Differences, 1905, from | ||||
| 1905. | Mean, 1901-04. | Standard Rate. | Mean Rate. | ||||
| London | 0.14 | — | 0.04 | 0.08 | -0.10 | -0.04 | |
| Paddington | 0.14 | 0.99635 | 0.02 | 0.06 | -0.12 | -0.04 | |
| Kensington | 0.14 | 1.01853 | 0.07 | 0.06 | -0.07 | †0.01 | |
| Westminster | 0.15 | 0.93441 | 0.01 | 0.07 | - 0.14 | - 0.06 | |
| Marylebone | 0.14 | 0.98552 | 0.03 | 0.06 | - 0.11 | - 0.03 | |
| Hampstead | 0.14 | 0.99677 | 0.04 | 0.06 | - 0.10 | - 0.02 | |
| Willesden | 0.14 | 0.99887 | 0.06 | 0.05 | - 0.08 | † 0.01 | |
In the majority of cases of enteric fever the infection gains access to the system through
food or water. Of recent years more attention has been given to the danger of the disease
being conveyed directly from person to person. Two channels for such conveyance are
easily thought of—namely, neglect to properly cleanse the hands after attending to the
patient (the usual means of infection in the case of nurses) and washing infected bed or body
linen. Comment has been made in previous reports on the occurrence of multiple cases in
households apparently due to direct infection from the primary patient. A more striking
instance of the dangers attending the retention of patients in homes where every appliance
and attention necessary for eradicating infection do not exist, has not hitherto come to the
knowledge of the Department, and is here described. It will be useful, however, as a
preliminary to recall the frequency of multiple infection of households recorded in previous
Reports.
In 1897 attention was first directed to this subject, 3 cases occurring during the year
among the Nursing Staff at St. Mary's Hospital. (Page 26.)
In 1898 six groups of multiple cases were specially dealt with, in 5 of which direct,
personal infection was believed to be the main, if not the only, cause of the succession
of cases. (Page 30.)
In 1899 multiple cases were reported in 8 houses (7 with 2 cases and 1 with 3). In
2 houses the personal element was very clear. (Page 35.)
In 1900 four such cases were reported, one being a nurse at St. Mary's Hospital.
(Page 21.)
In 1901 only one such case occurred. (Page 34.)
In 1902 two houses had two cases during the year; and one, 3. No instance of direct
personal infection was recorded. (Page 23.)