View report page

57
Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health.—1896.
served, and with one exception have been complied with. The provision of
a permanent staff, however, for this purpose is not within the range of
practical politics, for the reason already stated in reference to the suggested
increase in the number of disinfectors; it cannot be, until the Refuge House
is ready for occupation; for this is an indispensable necessity, if the provisions
of Sec. 60 are to be completely and universally enforced.
(6.) As to the provision of a Sanitary Clerk; that is, of a clerk whose time shall
be exclusively devoted to sanitary work, your Committee cannot recommend
such an appointment, until they are convinced that the M.O. intends to give
more personal snpervision to questions of detail. The late sanitary clerk was
removed from the Sanitary Inspector's Office because he had not sufficient
supervision. If the M.O. intends to look after the details of his work, then
no doubt such an official should be appointed. If his Department is to be
administered, as regards details, in the future, as it has hitherto been in the
past, it is certainly not worth while.
As to the suggestions with which the M.O. concludes his report—(1) the first, to
the effect that the District Inspector and not the disinfector, should pay the first visit,
after notification seems eminently desirable, and has already been recommended by the
Health Committee. Similarly, with regard to (2) the provision of a counterfoil book
of certificates of disinfection, granted to workmen for their employers; and similarly
as regards (3) the extension and systemising of the records of Sanitary Inspectors'
visits. (4) In the recommendation that the present books are sufficient, your Committee
cannot concur—and the insufficiency of the books seems to have been the view
of the doctor himself, according to his report dated December 15th, 1896. Neither the
present system, nor the way in which the books are kept, reflects credit on the Health
Department. The Health Committee should, for their own credit's sake, be instructed
to take the whole matter into their serious consideration.
(5.) All notices which do not require legal proof of delivery should be sent by
post.
(6.) We see no reason why a room for the disinfectors should be provided. Your
Committee have not learned in the course of their enquiry that the disinfectors have
any writing work to do other than that of entering up their respective diaries.
(7.) The provision of a stamped form or postcard, whereby the friends may
acquaint the M.O. of the removal of a patient, may be useful in a majority of cases,
but we fear that the system will not be completely satisfactory. We lean to a recommendation
already received by the Vestry to the effect that the Metropolitan Asylums
Board should inform the Vestry when an order of removal to an infectious hospital has
been issued to the Ambulance Superintendent.
(8.) As to the provision of a Clerk, your Committee would be prepared to
recommend such an appointment, if, as has already been stated, they had ground for
hope that adequate supervision, and a proper system of work, were to be arranged for
such an official.
(9.) If the work of the present disinfectors were to be, to some extent, rearranged,
the present staff would prove sufficient. Nor can they recommend (10) the
appointment of a permanent staff of assistants for the enforcement of Sec. 60; nor
can they endorse (11.) the doctor's recommendation that another Sanitary Inspector
should be appointed. In the L.C.C's. return, they observe that this parish, judged by
population, number of inhabited houses, and rateable value, has the largest staff of
Inspectors of any parish of more than 50,000 inhabitants, in the Metropolis.
Your Committee has learned in the course of this enquiry that it is the practice of
the L.G.B. to send communications of a confidential character to the M.O., the contents
of which be is not in a position to divulge to the Vestry. We recommend that the