View report page

74
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
Some discussion has taken place with reference to these wrongly
certified cases, but it is not in my opinion an unsatisfactory report. In
very many of the cases the patients are seen under most disadvantageous
circumstances and probably seen only once or twice by
the medical practitioner. It is obvious that the prompt removal of
even suspicious cases is desirable in the interests of public health, as
serious results might ensue if cases were not removed until an
absolutelv certain diagnosis was arrived at by the medical practitioner.
In the medical supplement, Dr. Turner, at page 314, states that out
of 735 cases of Scarlet Fever 538 weie diagnosed as such in the
receiving room, but one case was found not to be Scarlet Fever, while
in 197 cases the diagnosis was doubtful.
This gives a percentage of 27 in which a diagnosis could not be
arrived at on first examination, compared with 3.9 per cent. errors in
diagnosis in the Borough in the case of this disease.
With reference to Diphtheria the case is even worse. Out of 551
cases notified in only 317 was Diphtheria diagnosed in the receiving
room, while in 234 or 42 per cent, of the cases the diagnosis was
doubtful. This does not compare favourably with the 11.9 per cent.
of error in diagnosis of cases removed to hospital in this Borough.
Errors in diagnosis in Diphtheria could, however, be largely
minimised if practitioners would avail themselves more of the culture
test, and it is possible that the decrease in the number of cases of
errors in diagnosis in this Borough was due to the increased use of
this method.
Bacteriological Examinations.
During the year 174 bacteriological examinations were made at
the Lister Institute, compared with 121 in 1904, 125 in 1903, 78 in
1902, and 66 in 1901.
the following Table shows the number in the separate subdistricts
and for 'the whole Borough, also the disease for which
the examination was made and the result of such examination:—