View report page

23
Neither of these midwives were able to produce a case book.
They have been warned that they will be required to keep a proper
case book next year, and formal notice to this effect has been given
them.
I may add that in many instances notifications that should have
been sent to the supervising authority have not been received.
With regard to the midwife whose name has been removed from
the roll, the facts are as follows :—-
On June 19th, 1905, a notification was received from Dr. E.
that M.T., of 2, Lion Road, was suffering from puerperal septicaemia.
On enquiry it seemed that M.T, was confined on June 15th, and
was attended at her confinement by P.B. (No. on Roll 1,465). It
was found that she had disobeyed the following rules framed
by the Central Midwives' Board :—
E. 2. In that she attended the case without her bag and
without any disinfectants.
E. 3. In that she did not disinfect her hands and forearms.
E. 7. In that she did not disinfect the patient.
E. 11. In that the patient was not kept in a cleanly condition.
E 17. In that she allowed more than 36 hours to elapse
after the shivering lit before a doctor was sent for.
Furthermore, her case book was not properly kept, and she did
not appear to have sent either to the doctor or myself the necessary
notice required by Rule 19 (b).
On ascertaining these particulars she was requested to attend
before the Committee, who found a prima facie case of malpractice
and negligence established against her, and directed the same to be
reported to the Central Midwives' Board. The Board summoned
her to appear before it with a view to the removal of her name from
the roll, should the charges made against her appear to be proved.
The. doctor in attendance was also requested to attend to give
evidence.
After careful consideration of the facts of the case, and after
hearing the midwife's defence, the Board cancelled her certificate
and removed her name from the roll.