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

View report page

Heston and Isleworth 1937

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Heston and Isleworth]

This page requires JavaScript

From the middle of 1924 until September, 1936, I did the work alone, but since that date
the Isleworth Centre has been attended by one of the Assistant Medical Officers, who has had
previous experience in refraction work, and it has been pleasant and profitable to me to have a
colleague with whom the work can be discussed.

The growth of the work is best shown by the following figures for the years 1923-1937. These figures are those required by the Roard of Education annually and are therefore strictly comparable year by year.

Children attending for errors of refraction.SPECTACLES.
Prescribed.Obtained.
1923Part-time Ophthalmic Surgeon.129108103
1924Whole-time Medical Officer for part of year.183150141
1925Whole-time Medical Officer.291256247
1926do.291227218
1927do.289219213
1928do.297257250
1929do.413344327
1930do.443405392
1931do.531480472
1932do.537500490
1933do.581569559
1934do.552517498
1935do.647606595
(Elementary615)
(Secondary32)
1936do.772540544*
(Elementary691)*4 Prescribed December, 1935.
(Secondary81)
1937do.804 (Elementary (Secondary700) 104)541 +6 obtained535+ January, 1938.

It will be seen, therefore, that the number of Elementary scholars attending annually is
more than five times greater than in 1923. The school population has also increased, the
number on the register in December, 1937, being 11,834, whereas in 1923 the average number
was 6,499, the numbers being not quite doubled. Therefore the large increase in the numbers
annually attending the Eye Clinic must be chiefly due to the systematic scheme of re-examination
and to the greater care in finding and submitting for treatment children with visual defects,
and alsj to the increased response of parents to the facilities offered.
There are no grounds for attributing the increase to be caused by a larger proportion of
children suffering from visual defects than formerly.
It will be noted that the number of spectacles prescribed is not as large as the numbers
of children attending—this is due to the fact that it is not always necessary to change the
spectacles when children attend for their periodic re-examination, although usually some small
change or adjustment is necessary. Occasionally also, children submitted to refraction are
found not to require spectacles.
In conclusion I give figures of the work of the Eye Clinic for 1937.
We ended the year with a waiting list of 176 children in the Hounslow area, and the reexamination
notices for December had not been sent out. This will necessitate extra sessions early
in 1938 in order to bring the work up-to-date.
At Isleworth there was no waiting list—consent forms here are received in such small
numbers that the children are never kept waiting for treatment, and yet in spite of this the
attendance lags behind that of Hounslow, where there is always delay before treatment can be
received.
22