[Report 1956] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County.

  • Canterbury (England). City & County Council.
Date:
1956
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1956] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    39/54 (page 35)
    PRINCIPAL SCHOOL MEDICAL OFFICER’S REPORT FOR 1956 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the honour to present the annual rei)ort on the work of the Canterbury School Health Service during 1956. You will find in it that one in three of the school children were medically examined during the year and that only 2.8% had defects or malnutrition sufficient to classify them as in an unsatisfactory condition. An increase in the cases of visual defects was found. This warrants observation, for television is a known visual hazard to the young. Defects of nose and throat are common findings in the primary school children for they are meeting new infections in their new surroundings and contacts on school entry. We are in no hurry to suggest radical measures to deal with tonsil or adenoid enlargement, for we see this as a protective reaction to be watched over a period of time before any decisive advice is given. In general the enlargement settles as defences are develoi>ed. This explains why of the 295 children identified with defects of nose and throat only 50 were considered to need treatment and only 18 referred for specialist advice (with the knowledge of the family doctor), of whom 8 had operative treatment, 2 had other treatment and 8 were referred for further observation. This is a numerical expression of our outlook on the tomsils and adenoids situation. The absence of fluoride from the local water supply is bound to reflect itself on local dental health but we have no survey of the level of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (d.m.f. ratio) at different ages on which to make a ])lea for fluoridation. Nevertheless this matter will come forward as a general i)ublic health measure within the coming decade, with benefit to children’s dental health. The general health of our school children is of a standard to justify a certain pride and as it im])roves it may call for a re- thinking of our scheme of periodic medical examinations. It is essential that the form of sitpervision should be of a periodic character and not confined to times of ill healtli. The latter is well covered by the family doctor. The school medical officers’ l)rcoccu]')ation with minor troubles is sometimes decried by other memliers of the medical imofcssion, but it must be recognised tliat it is the early identification of defects in times of ap])arent health that has done so much to raise the standard of health in school