View report page

244
Appendix B, at the end of this Report. Except two
cases, specially indicated, the recurrence of infection
was carefully investigated in respect of all circumstances
and details likely to favour the spread of infection independently
of the home coming patient. For the sake of
brevity, only those points which were specially noted in
each case have been tabulated. There were no grounds
for thinking that the new cases were due to defective
disinfection, etc. In the current year these cases will
be further investigated with the aid of bacteriology.
In addition to the 10 instances tabulated, there
were two others which until investigated appeared to
furnish return cases. In the first of these cases, patient
A (m. æt. 4) came home after treatment for diphtheria,
on 10th April, and his sister (patient B,æt. 11) was notified
ill with the same disease, she sickening on the 15th
of that month. The diagnosis of B's case was not confirmed
at the hospital. A bacteriological examination
showed that the "pseudo-diphtheritic" bacillus was
present in A's throat after he had been home some 16
days. There were no other cases of illness in the
house or street. For the second case, the patient who
was taken ill after the return home of her brother and
certified to be ill with diphtheria, for which disease
the boy had been sent to hospital, was found to be ill
with scarlet fever.
In connection with the occurrence of these 'return'
cases, it ought to be mentioned that endeavours have