View report page

35
Annual Report Medical Officer of the of Health—1896.
Isolation.— Amongst a crowded and poor population such as that met with in your
district, I believe the only really efficient course to be adopted is the prompt removal
of almost every diphtheritic patient to the Infectious Hospitals of the Metropolitan
Asylums Board. No one, having any practical experience of the sick poor, can deny
the impossibility of efficiently isolating—to say nothing of treating—patients
living in houses like those in Cornbury Street. With regard to this question
it is especially noteworthy that the two original cases at number 41 were
refused admission into the Asylums Board Hospitals, and notwithstanding the
fact that a daily request both by word of mouth and in writing to the Central
Office of the Board, was kept up until the death of the children referred to. This
failure on the part of the Asylums Board was especially prominent during the early
period of the attack—that is to say, the most important stage of the outbreak.
Disinfection.— Owing to the build of houses in Cornbury Street and to the fact of
the families of the disinfected patients having no rooms to go to pending the disinfection
of their homes, this necessary process was only carried out in an imperfect manner. I
will not now discuss the question of the remedy in the shape of a Reception House
against a recurrence of this evil, since I have already fully reported upon the matter.
The disinfection of rooms, whether by means of sulphur dioxide or by a spray of
corrosive sublimate, or ether chemical should. I believe, in all cases he followod by a
free perflation of fresh air—that is to say, if thorough efficiency be desired. Many
authorities go so far as to assert that it is necessary to re-paper and whitewash rooms
after fumigation by sulphur. I have little hesitation in saying that such a step would
be absolutely necessary should the spray system be adopted in this district, in which
case the cost—a heavy one—would fall upon your Vestry.
In conclusion, the Cornbury Street outbreak, in my opinion, emphasises the want
of a Reception House for families of infected patients, and of a house-to-house inspection
of the Parish, such as that now in progress. It also illustrates once more the shortcomings
of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, in the provision of adequate infectious
accommodation for this poverty-stricken district.
Report of an Inquiry into Room=Disinfection as practised in St. George
the Martyr.
REPORT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SEWERS COMMITTEE.
To the Vestry of the Parish of St. George the Martyr,—
Your Committee beg to report that the question of room-disinfection has been
under their consideration, and on the 9th November, 1896, they appointed a SubCommittee
to make a thorough investigation of the methods employed by the Sanitary
Department, and the instructions given by the Medical Officer of Health in reference
thereto. The Committee now submit the results of the enquiry made by the SubCommittee,
and reported to the Committee on the 27th November, 1896, as follows:—
The Sub-Committee held four meetings, and investigated the present system in
the light of information, placed at their disposal by the Medical Officer of Health, the
Chief Inspector, the Sanitary Inspectors, and the Disinfecting Men.
The course pursued may be thus described. By frequent inquiry at the house
where an infectious case has occurred, the disinfecting men learn when the patient
has been removed; they then take the truck and proceed to the house, remove the
bedding (putting blankets, sheets, &c., into a bag), and the smaller pieces of carpet;
all these articles are placed in the truck. Larger carpets and curtains, even those
hanging round the bed, are never removed. When the disinfecting men return to the
room, they usually close the register (if there be one), and if such an appliance does