View report page

37
Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health.—1896.
They were under the impression that it was the duty of the Medical Officer of
Health to visit such cases.* Although the outbreak in the district, which is very
poor, was sufficiently serious for those in authority to close of their own accord—after
August 23rd—the neighbouring Sunday School, the Medical Officer of Health was
unable to say that he had visited the spot according to the regulation which has just
been quoted. Indeed, owing to the fact that the Medical Officer of Health does not
keep books, according to the requirements of the Local Government Board,f he could
give us but little information or assistance in the course of the inquiry.
A case in-Street, for instance, was discussed, in which a child was removed
on August 10th, suffering from scarlet fever. The disinfecting officer would not say
that a mattress belonging to the infected family was not used to close the chimney
during sulphuration. Before this child returned from the hospital, another child was
attacked; and, after lying fourteen days at home, was removed on October 16th. A
third child (who has since died) succumbed to the infection, and was removed on the
following day. Meanwhile, a child belonging to another family in the same house
was attacked with diphtheria, and removed on October 12th. Owing to the absence
of any record of his visits, the Medical Officer of Health was unable to remember
whether, as alleged, he had given any certificate to the father of the child suffering
from diphtheria, so that he (the father) could return to work, or whether he had
visited the house at any time to look into the circumstances under which scarlet fever
had, after two months, returned to the same family, with fatal results.
A somewhat similar group of cases of diphtheria was discussed, in which a child
was removed suffering from this disease on March 4th. The child returned in April,
was re-attacked in July, and was removed on July 25th. His sister was removed on
July 28th.
Your Committee submit that special attention should be paid to return cases such
as these. With this object, it is to be desired that the Medical Officer of Health
should be so punctual in his attendance as to be accessible to the members of the staff
during those hours which the Vestry has specified.
In the report of the Medical Officer of Health for 1895, he gives details as to the
number of rooms and their inhabitants in which, during the last three-and-a-half years,
efficient fumigation had been impossible, owing to there being no family shelter.

* The Sanitary Officers (London) Order, 1891, Art. 18, See. (6), reads:—"On receiving information
of the outbreak of any dangerous infectious disease within his district, he (that is the Medical
Officer) shall visit without delay the spot where the outbreak has occurred, and inquire into the causes
and circumstances of such outbreak; and, in case he is not satisfied that all due precautions are being
taken, he shall advise the persons competent to act, as to the measures which may appear to him to be
required to prevent the extension of the disease, and shall take such measures for the prevention of
disease as he is legally authorised to take under any Statute in force in the district, or by any resolution
of the Sanitary Authority."
† Sec. (14) of the Order already quoted, reads :—" He (that is, the Medical Officer of Health) shall
keep a book or books, to be provided by the Sanitary Authority, in which he shall make an entry of
his visits, and notes of his observations and instructions thereon, and also the date and nature of
applications made to him and shall produce such book or books, whenever required, to
the Sanitary Authority."