ABETTER REPORT ON INFECTIOUS DISEASES CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18641, 19 December 1928, Page 11

ABETTER REPORT ON INFECTIOUS DISEASES CASES.

NOVEMBER SHOWS DECREASE OVER OCTOBER FIGURES. The following is a list of the notifications of infectious diseases during the month of November, received from the Department of Flealth by the North Canterbury Hospital Board:— Scarlet fever 153 Diphtheria 2 Tuberculosis 22 Pneumonia 18 Puerperal sepsis 3 Pneumonic influenza 6 Fulminate 1 Hydatids 1 Food poisoning 1 Erysipelas 10 Cerebo-spinal meningitis .... 1 Total 218 This return, stated the report of the Public Health Committee, shows a decrease of seventy-six cases. This is noticeable in the scarlet fever notifications, which are thirty-six below that for the month of October. The report of the matron of the Infectious Diseases’ Hospital showed that at the end of the month there were 169 patients; and during the month 298 -patients were treated. These comprised: Scarlet fever 292, diphtheria 6, total 298. The medical officer of the institution had reported that although the number of admissions were slightly decreasing, yet the cases were not going out very quickly, but that was no indication that the number was increasing. A number of them had swollen glands and it was thought undesirable to discharge them, which kept the daily average at a fairly high level. All of the cases in the institution were of a mild type. With reference to the proposal that the committee should consider the question of the appointment of a resident medical officer for the institution, it had been determined that at the present juncture the need had not arisen. None of the cases existing had untoward circumstances, nor had there been —during the winter months —anything calling for exceptional treatment. The death rate had been exceptionally low for a hospital of this character. Those that had died had —in most cases—been “in extremis ” when admitted. Much of the criticism that had appeared in connection with the hospital had been directed, not against the staff, but against the board and its management. This, being misunderstood, seriously affected the staff, who were loyally working to carry out the duties to which they had been called; but the criticism that appeared—not being pronounced as against the board but against the staff—had a detrimental influence on the institution. The report was adopted.