View report page

38
bacilli were found in 3. In 1901, 26 swabs were examined
with 7 positive results; in 1902, 97 swabs, 27 being positive;
in 1903, 66 swabs, 15 being positive.
68. Mistaken diagnosis.—11 cases or 7 per cent, of admissions
were found not to be Diphtheria after removal to
Hospital, compared with 12 per cent, in 1903.
69. Source of infection.—In 25 cases the apparent source
of infection was some member of the family whose illness was
not diagnosed, or whosa isolation was not enforced soon enough
to prevent the spread of infection. At two houses which I
visited after cases had been notified, I found children with
nasal discharges, which bacteriological examination proved to
be Diphtheritic. One of these had infected three brothers and
sisters. At another house, where four children were infected,
and two had died, I found a brother who had recently had a
sore throat.
Three were infected by neighbours or friends, one probably
in a tram car, two on a railway journey, one by visiting the
Fever Hospital to see the body of a deceased friend, and two
were return cases.
70. Return cases.—As I pointed out in my last Annual
Report, return cases after diphtheria are now exceptional as
all patients are examined bacteriologically and pronounced free
from diphtheria bacilli before discharge. Two apparent return
cases occurred however last year. One occurred nineteen days
after return home of a patient convalescent with Scarlet Fever,
who had a nasal discharge. This discharge was however found
free from diphtheria bacilli. In the other case a diphtheria
patient after return home was found to have a very slight