View report page

237 [1912
sanatorium, which in each instance was due to the patient being apparently
under the impression that "sanatorium benefit" necessarily meant his or
her treatment in a sanatorium. The use of this phrase has been a great
mistake, and has, without doubt, led patients to expect that they would be
taken to an institution of this character.
In all, 62 cases were submitted to the Medical Officer of Health to make
arrangements for treatment, and of these—
47 were recommended for domiciliary treatment;
3 „ „ dispensary treatment;
11 ,, „ sanatorium treatment;
1 was „ hospital (in-patient) treatment.
In each of the three dispensary cases the patient preferred to continue in
attendance at the tuberculin dispensary by whose medical officer he had been
recommended for sanatorium benefit. These were the Kennington Tuberculin
Dispensary (2) and Finsbury Tuberculosis Dispensary. The one patient
recommended for hospital treatment had first to be attended at his home,
and was afterwards admitted into Brompton Hospital.
During the month of February, 1913, the Medical Officer of Health
received an intimation from the Clerk to the Insurance Committee for the
County of London that the arrangements previously made for the domiciliary
treatment of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis would cease, and that
in future all communications should be addressed direct to the Clerk of that
Committee.
In a report which the Medical Officer of Health submitted to the Public
Health Committee respecting this work, he pointed out that the work that
was then undertaken was only very small as compared with that which he
anticipated would occur in the future, especially when sanatorium benefit was
extended to the dependants of insured persons. Indeed, reference has only
to be made to that portion of this report relating to Tuberculosis to verify
his statement.