View report page

122
Hospital. Four attended regularly, but in two cases where treatment
had been given during previous pregnancies, we had the greatest difficulty
in inducing them to attend regularly. We have reports to hand
on four of the babies who were born subsequently and all have appeared
healthy up to date. In this connection, I should add that nineteen blood
tests were performed in 1927, the Wassermann reaction being tested for
us by the Pathologist at the Royal Free Hospital, under the L.C.C.
Scheme. Four of these tests were carried out on mothers who had had
still-births some weeks previously, so as to try and determine the cause
in each particular case. In all of these four, the Wassermann reaction
was negative.
Of the twelve cases of endocervicitis, swabs were taken from the
cervix or upper part of the vagina in ten, and were sent to the Pathologist
at the Royal Free Hospital, under the L.C.C. Scheme, for
microscopic examination. No gonococci were found, but pus was present
in nearly all cases. The same result ensued when swabs were taken in
a similar manner, for the investigation of three cases of ophthalmia
neonatorum, where the mother had not attended the Ante-Natal Clinic
before the birth of the baby. In view of the fact that not only is
endocervicitis in the mother, the cause of ophthalmia neonatorum in the
baby, but is also probably a precursor of puerperal pyrexia in some
cases, it is most important to ensure adequate treatment for such a condition.
Of the twelve cases above, eight were sent to the Royal Free
Hospital for treatment, six attending regularly. A ninth case was
treated at home with douches and pessaries, by the District Nurse under
our direction. In only one of these treated cases (so far as we have
been able to get reports up to date) has the baby born subsequently
developed any discharge from the eyes, and that was so slight as not to
be notified by the particular Maternity Hospital in question. The tenth
case attended only once and was then transferred to the Ante-Natal
Clinic of a Maternity Hospital where she was going to be confined. The
baby subsequently developed ophthalmia neonatorum and was notified
as such. The last two remaining cases have been lost sight of, and we
have not been able to keep in touch with them. In this connection I
should say that there were only seven notified cases of ophthalmia
neonatorum in the Borough during 1927. In three of these, the mothers
had attended the Ante-Natal Clinic beforehand. One was the case
referred to above. In the other two, there had been no indication during
pregnancy of any endocervicitis.
MARY KIDD,
M.B. (Lond.).
2nd March, 1928,