London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

London County Council 1963

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

REPORTS BY THE DIVISIONAL MEDICAL OFFICERS
(A statistical summary of work done in the divisions will be found at the end of this section.)
DIVISION 1, comprising the boroughs of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith and
Kensington
Dr. Bertha E. A. Sharpe reports:
I would first pay tribute to all members of the staff for the way services were maintained
and many additional duties were cheerfully undertaken during the long spell of exceptionally
severe weather with which the year began. Regular meetings were held with the borough
medical officers of health and senior members of the field staff at which the problems and
difficulties created by the unprecedented weather conditions of the previous winter were
discussed and plans formulated for dealing with any recurrence of them.
Prophylaxis—A general survey, involving the examination of school medical records,
was undertaken during the summer with a view to finding out the immunisation state of
all school children in the division. This revealed that many children were in need of protection
against poliomyelitis and diphtheria and a great drive followed to make good these
deficencies.'Consent' letters were sent to thousands of parents and the response was good.
Special immunisation sessions were held in schools and the bulk of the arrears overtaken.
The conclusion was reached that many mothers, especially those at work, leave their
children's immunisation until the children reach school age.
Maternity and child welfare—The divisional maternity bed bureau, established during
1962, again produced highly satisfactory results. Of 1,675 cases referred to the bureau
during the year, a booking was arranged for 1,496. Of the remainder, the reference was
withdrawn in 106 cases, either because domiciliary confinement had been arranged or the
mother had moved out of the division before confinement; in only 73 cases (less than
5 per cent.) had the patient to be referred for admission through the Emergency Bed Service
procedure because no booking could be arranged. These latter were all social cases, mostly
women attending a clinic for the first time very late in pregnancy. As in 1962, a bed was
found for every case referred on medical grounds.
The scheme envisaged in 1962 for the grant to general practitioner obstetricians of
facilities to see their own booked cases at the Council's welfare centres was implemented
early in the year. It has been most successful and at the end of the year 28 general
practitioner obstetricians were participating at seven welfare centres.
Two health visitors attend infant welfare sessions held in general practitioners' surgeries
and it is proposed to allocate another to a group practice subject to staff being available.
In districts where there are many individual practices it has proved more economical of
health visiting time for the general practitioner to refer to a group of health visitors covering
a geographical area. The staffing situation makes it impossible to meet all requests but
a closer relationship between general practitioners and health visitors has been achieved.
Additional services made available during the year included the inception at Camden
Hill welfare centre of a discussion group for mothers with problems concerning their
toddlers.
The weekly evening paediatric session established as an experiment at Lancaster Road
welfare centre in October, 1962 has been continued throughout the year. The session has
proved highly successful in meeting the needs of mothers who are unable to take their
children to normal daytime clinics.
98