Part 5

From these facts Dr. Le Fort concludes that the relative mortality in small and large establishments is not favourable to small hospitals, _per se_. The benefit of subdivision may be neutralised by other circumstances.

We must also protest against massing hospitals, alike only in one circumstance, together for the sake of taking their statistics _in bulk_ in this way, except for the most general purposes—which is indeed all Dr. Le Fort has in view here—especially as our own lying-in institutions of these islands, which come out best individually, appear here confounded amongst the greatest sinners. But Dr. Le Fort’s general conclusion, against the influence of size _per se_, is no doubt correct.

As a general rule, statistics appear to show that the great mortality of lying-in hospitals is of periodical occurrence.

Puerperal women, as everyone knows, are the most susceptible of all subjects to ‘blood-poisoning.’ The smallest transference of putrescing miasm from a locality where such miasm exists to the bedside of a lying-in patient is most dangerous. Puerperal women are, moreover, exposed to the risks of ‘blood-poisoning’ by the simple fact of being brought together in lying-in wards, and especially by being retained a longer time than is absolutely necessary in lying-in wards after being delivered, while to a great extent they escape this entire class of risks by being attended at home.

There are no doubt difficulties in assigning the exact effect of every condition to which a lying-in woman may be exposed in contributing to these death-rates, but there are, nevertheless, a few great fundamental facts which arrest attention in such an enquiry.

It is a fact, for instance, that however grand, or however humble, a home may be in which the birth of a child takes place, there is only one delivery in the home at one time. Another fact is, that a second delivery will certainly not take place in the same room, inhabited by the same couple, for 10 months at least, and may not take place in the same room for years. The Registrar-General has shown us that under these conditions the death-rate among lying-in women all over England, and from all registered causes, is about 5·1 per 1,000.

In many London workhouses the number of deliveries yearly is so small that, so far as concerns annual deliveries, they approach more closely to dwelling-houses divided among a number of families than they do to lying-in hospitals properly so called.

Let us now see what relation there is between the annual deliveries and the death-rates in these workhouse wards.

Assuming that the London workhouse lying-in wards have certain conditions in common, we find that twenty-seven infirmaries suffered from lying-in deaths in five years, and that in thirteen there were no deaths in the same years. Now, in each of these twenty-seven hospitals yielding deaths, the deliveries averaged 29 per annum, while in the thirteen infirmaries without deaths the deliveries averaged under 16 per annum.

Again, in twenty-one infirmaries with deaths, the average disposable space for each occupied lying-in bed was 2,246 cubic feet; while in nine infirmaries without deaths the space per occupied bed averaged 3,149 cubic feet. These, however, are only averages, and as such may be taken for what they are worth. There were exceptions to these rules in particular cases.

The facts regarding Waterford Lying-in Institution have a very important bearing on this question of subdivision.

In the years from 1838 to 1844 this hospital consisted of two rooms in a small house. One room was a delivery ward. The other held eight lying-in beds. The total deliveries in this house amounted to 753, and there were 6 deaths = 8 per 1,000. Half this mortality was due to puerperal fever.

In October 1844 this hospital occupied another small house, in which the eight lying-in beds were placed in two rooms instead of one as formerly—four beds per room. Up to October 1867 there had been 2,656 deliveries in this house, and 9 deaths—a mortality of 3·4 per 1,000. There were only two puerperal fever deaths in these 2,656 deliveries.

These facts appear to show that subdivision among lying-in cases has a certain influence in warding off mortality.

But, on the other hand, the death-rates among lying-in cases in particular hospitals are not always in the ratio of the number of occupied beds. A few illustrations of this will suffice.

Thus, in the year 1861, there were in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, 1,135 deliveries, on which the death-rate was 51·9 per 1,000. In 1828 the deliveries were 2,856, and the death-rate 15 per 1,000. In the four years 1830 to 1833, the deliveries varied from 2,138 to 2,288, and the death-rates were a little more than 5 per 1,000. In Queen Charlotte’s Hospital the highest death-rate occurred in 1849, during which year there were 161 deliveries. The death-rate was 93·2 per 1,000, while in 1832, with 217 deliveries, the death-rate was just one tenth of this amount.

In the Maison d’Accouchement at Paris, during the five decennial periods between 1810 and 1859,[9] there were 141,476 deliveries, among which there occurred 6,288 deaths, giving a death-rate of 44·4 per 1,000. The lowest death-rate in any of the decennial periods occurred between 1840 and 1849, when it amounted to 41·9 per 1,000. The largest number of deliveries of any period in the half century was during this ten years. They amounted to 34,776; while, in the period from 1850 to 1859, the deliveries were 24,944, and the death-rate 52 per 1,000.

The Dublin Rotunda approximates most to this Paris Maternité in the large number of deliveries, vibrating around 2,000 a year; while, in Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, where, even since its reconstruction, the mortality has been in many years higher than in the Dublin Rotunda, the number of annual deliveries has varied around 200.

_Danger of Puerperal Epidemics._—These facts have a very important bearing on the whole question of lying-in institutions, for they show that, with scarcely an exception, while the lowest death-rate in any given year greatly exceeds the average mortality among lying-in women delivered at home, the inmates of these institutions are exposed to the enormous additional risk of puerperal epidemics.

Take, for instance, Queen Charlotte’s Hospital. There is no reason to believe that less care and solicitude for the welfare of its inmates is exercised than would be the case if they were delivered at home. And yet we find that year by year, from 1828 down to the present time, the institution has only escaped deaths for four years. The lowest death-rate it ever had was in 1835, when it amounted to 4·6 per 1,000. In other years it has been 11, 15, 21, 30, 50, 70, 81, 86, and in one year it rose to the immense death-rate of 93·2 per 1,000.

In 1849 there were, as above said, 161 deliveries out of which fourteen women died from puerperal fever, being a death-rate of 87 per 1,000 from this disease alone.

The statistics of other lying-in institutions afford corresponding data. It is a lamentable fact that the mortality in lying-in wards from childbirth, which is _not_ a disease, approaches closely to the mortality from all diseases and accidents together in general hospitals, and in many instances even greatly exceeds this mortality. It is the more lamentable, because, as need scarcely be stated, the causes of a higher mortality in infancy and old age cannot exist at childbearing ages. Also, childbirth ought certainly not to be a ‘miasmatic disease.’ Unless, then, it can be clearly shown that these enormous death-rates can be abated, or that they are altogether inevitable, does not the whole of the evidence with regard to special lying-in hospitals lead but to one conclusion, viz. that they should be closed? Is there any conceivable amount of privation which would warrant such a step as bringing together a constant number of puerperal women into the same room, in buildings constructed and managed on the principles embodied in existing lying-in institutions?

_Fatality of Lying-in Wards in General Hospitals._—Besides special lying-in hospitals, there are general hospitals which receive lying-in cases. Fortunately, there are not many such in England. But in Paris there are 11[10] general hospitals which receive midwifery cases. A reference to Tables XI., XII., XIII., will show how great the risks are to lying-in women under the same roof with medical and surgical cases; a fact which may be further illustrated by a reference to data for particular hospitals. For example, in 1861, 253 lying-in cases in La Charité gave a total death-rate of 193·7 per 1,000, of which no less than 154·2 was due to puerperal causes. These tables tell their own story, and they throw altogether into the shade the lamentable losses at King’s College Hospital.

The only _amende_ that could be made was to shut up the ward; and having done this in the interest of womankind, need it be said that the impression produced by these statistics confirms the conclusion just stated in regard to existing lying-in wards generally, and is that not a single lying-in woman should ever pass within the doors of a general hospital? Is not any risk which can be incurred outside almost infinitely smaller? And as a general hospital must always be a hospital, must not this verdict be an absolute one, not one which can be altered or reversed?

_INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF LYING-IN WARDS ON THE DEATH-RATE._

Before, however, surrendering entirely the principle of special lying-in institutions, it is only fair to enquire whether the construction, management, and arrangements of existing hospitals of this class may possibly have had any influence upon the mortality, apart from the mere fact of bringing lying-in cases together under one roof.

This question is the more important because we now know that construction and arrangement of buildings exert a notable effect on the death statistics of general hospitals. It is at last universally admitted that airy open site, simplicity of plan, subdivision of cases under a number of separate pavilions, large cubic space, abundant fresh air, mainly from windows on the opposite sides of the wards, drainage arrangements entirely outside the hospital, are essential conditions to the safety of all general hospitals. But, as already stated, it is likewise admitted that lying-in women are peculiarly susceptible to ‘blood-poisoning.’

This being the case, have we any reason to expect other than a high death-rate if we collect lying-in women into such wards, or rather rooms, as are found in many old hospitals?

Nobody with ordinary knowledge of the subject, and desirous simply of benefiting suffering people, would now dream of appropriating buildings of this kind as hospitals for sick. But it is to be feared that the same scruple has not always existed with regard to lying-in women. And as we now know that such buildings give high death-rates among sick and wounded people, there is every reason to fear that they have had their share in raising the death-rate among lying-in women to a greater extent than that due merely to the fact of agglomeration. As instances of the existence of danger from such causes, and also from grave errors in administration, two or three illustrations are here introduced from existing lying-in establishments.

_Maternité, Paris._—We have seen from the statistics that the chief of chief offenders in times past has been the Maternité at Paris. This establishment was in former times the monastery of ‘Port Royal de Paris.’ It is situated in one of the most healthy open spots on the outskirts of the French capital, and, as far as situation is concerned, ought to be healthy. The building was devoted to its present destination in 1795, and has undergone many changes since that date. It contains 228 beds for lying-in women, and, besides, accommodation for 94 pupil midwives. From 1,000 to 2,200 deliveries and upwards take place here annually: from 1840 to 1849 there were as many as 3,400 annually. Until recently it consisted properly of three divisions, delivery wards, cells for delivered women in the process of recovery, and an infirmary.

The delivery ward is well-lighted on two sides, and communicates with an operation theatre, where lectures are also given.

The woman, if progressing favourably after delivery, was removed to one of the cells in what may be called the recovery ward. The construction of these cells was as follows:—a long corridor, with windows on opposite sides, was divided into separate cells, each cell having its own window, by partitions stretching one third across the corridor, but not cut off on the end towards the middle of the corridor. Each cell was provided with a bed and a cradle, so that in walking up the centre of the corridor the divisions, or rather the cells, opened right and left from the passage, like the stalls of a stable. This construction rendered it almost impossible to open the windows. The infirmary consisted of small wards of three or four beds each, into which were moved indiscriminately patients suffering with all classes of disease. And it appears, from Dr. Le Fort’s account, that pupil midwives had at the same time patients in the infirmary, and healthy women, both delivered and not delivered, under their care. Pregnant women are often admitted weeks, and even months before delivery, at the Maternité. [So also at the Midwives’ Clinique at Vienna.]

Recently the cells have been removed from the corridor, and glass partitions have been thrown across from back to front, each division containing six beds, but communicating with the adjoining divisions by means of doors intended to be used only when the service requires it.

The infirmary has been completely separated from this portion of the establishment, but all classes of cases are still transferred into the infirmary as before.

As consequences of these arrangements, we have in the Maternité the following conditions:—

1. The agglomeration of a number of lying-in women under the same roof.

2. An internal construction of the building not suited to give fresh air, to say the least of it.

3. The infirmary until recently connected with the other portions of the building, and even now receiving all classes of cases among lying-in women, whether febrile or not, for treatment.

4. One class of attendants devoted indiscriminately to all classes of inmates.

5. As already mentioned, women admitted and retained within the walls of the establishment before and after the time simply required for delivery and convalescence.

Lastly, an enormous death-rate mainly from puerperal diseases.

_Hôpital de la Clinique, Paris._—This establishment is part of the hospital for clinical instruction, close to the buildings of the École de Médecine. The hospital consists of a parallelogram with a central court, containing not only the clinical surgery wards, but also an amphitheatre devoted to anatomical studies, with a mean number of fifty corpses in the course of dissection.

There are six wards devoted to the midwifery department, arranged in a complicated manner, partly across the corridor, and partly on each side of the corridor, all of them entered from a central passage lighted by the open doors of the wards along the sides. They contained 54 lying-in beds. From 800 to 900 deliveries took place here annually. 18 to 20 days appear to be the average stay. The beds must, therefore, have been pretty constantly full.

The wards devoted to women who have been delivered communicate freely with one another by open doors. The beds are curtained, and the curtains are washed only once in six months, even though the occupants of the bed may have died of puerperal fever. The beds are of iron, and are provided with a spring mattress, over which is a wool mattress. The latter is removed after each delivery, cleansed, and renewed. There is no infirmary for diseases; whether cases of puerperal fever or others, all are treated in the beds in which they are placed after delivery.

The female staff performs its duty to all classes of cases.

Students entered upon the roll for midwifery practice are called into the wards from other parts of the establishment by signals placed in a window.

It is quite unnecessary to search for any more recondite causes of the past excessive mortality of this establishment than these simple facts.

The above plan, taken from M. Husson’s ‘Étude sur les Hôpitaux,’ will show the arrangement of wards and beds in this place. [Dr. Le Fort says that the number of beds in each ward has since been reduced by a third.]

_Queen Charlotte’s Lying-in Hospital, London._—Plate I. shows a plan and section of Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, as rebuilt in 1856.

On each floor are 6 wards, containing 3 beds each, in which the patients are delivered, with an average of 1,000 cubic feet to each patient. On each floor, also, is one convalescent ward, containing 6 beds. Two floors are devoted to patients: one for married, and one for single women. As soon as 3 patients have been delivered in a ward, it remains vacant for 8 or 10 days, and is cleansed. Patients are removed as soon as possible to the convalescent ward. When a case of fever occurs, the ward is freshly whitewashed, and not occupied again for at least a month.

In this building we have three floors and a basement. A drain runs from back to front of the building, right across the basement—a most unsafe course for a drain in any inhabited building.[11]

It will be seen that the rooms are placed on opposite sides of a main corridor running the lengthway of the building on each floor; that the corridors of the different floors communicate by the stairs; that the ventilation of each room communicates with the ventilation of every other room through the corridors; that none of the rooms have windows on opposite sides, and that there are water-closets having a ventilation common to that of the building. Now every one of these structural arrangements is objectionable, and would be considered so in any good hospital, and nobody now-a-days would venture to include all of them in a general hospital plan. They are hence _à fortiori_ altogether inadmissible in a building for the reception of lying-in women.

We have thus, in Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, the following defects:—

1. Agglomeration of a number of cases under the same roof.

2. A form of construction unsuited for hospital purposes.

3. No means of removing outside the building febrile or other cases of puerperal diseases from the vicinity of patients recovering after delivery.

Since 1856, notwithstanding the great improvements, the death-rates per 1,000 have been 12·2, 8·8, 81·2, 70·3, 54·2, 39·2, 15·5, and so on: in several years very considerably larger than the mortality which led to the closing of the lying-in wards in King’s College Hospital. These varying deaths lead to the exercise of much caution in drawing conclusions as to their causes; but the main fact remains, namely, there are the death-rates, and they are many times greater than occur among London poor women delivered at home.

_Midwifery Wards, King’s College Hospital._—The following plan shows the provision which existed for training midwifery nurses at King’s College Hospital.

_A, A._ Accouchement Wards, used alternately.

_B._ Recovery Ward.

_C._ Contains Linen Presses, and Infants’ Baths, &c., for Ward use.

_D._ Superior’s Bed-room.

_E._ Midwife’s Room.

_F._ Post-mortem Theatre.

_G, G._ General and Provision Hoists.

_K._ This roof is not higher than the basement.

_x._ Ventilating openings on a level with upper part of opposite window.

_a, a, a, a._ Doors cutting off communication with either Accouchement Ward when necessary.

_b._ No. 4 Ward.

The plan shows the relation of the delivery wards to the recovery ward, and to the other parts of the hospital; to the lecture room, post mortem theatre, &c. The main defects in the construction are: the back to back wards; proximity of these wards to the general wards of the hospital; the large staircase, common to both sets of wards, although its size and openness, and the windows opposite each other and on each floor, ensured ventilation, and separated the respective blocks; the position of the post-mortem theatre, the smell from which, as stated on the best authority, could be distinctly detected in the wards. As already stated, students were admitted from other parts of the hospital to the midwifery wards.

_RESULTS OF IMPROVED LYING-IN WARD CONSTRUCTION._

A few instances of improved lying-in ward construction, together with the death-rates in these establishments, will next be given.

_Military Female Hospitals._—These buildings vary in constructive arrangements. Some are much better than others, and during recent years lying-in wards of improved construction have been provided in connection with several newly erected military female hospitals. The earlier plans of the new female hospitals consist of a block formed of two pavilions joined end to end, with a passage across the block to separate the pavilions from each other. Each pavilion contains a single ward, with its own separate offices and nurses’ rooms. It has windows on opposite sides, with one large end window, and abundant means of warming and ventilation. One pavilion is devoted to general cases, the other to lying-in cases.

The midwifery ward has space for twelve beds. Each bed has a superficial area of ninety square feet, and a cubic space of 1,350 feet. The wards are fifteen feet high.

Two hospitals on this plan have been in use at Woolwich and Chatham for upwards of six years. During this period there have been at the two 1,093 deliveries, and 11 deaths. At Chatham there was one accidental death from removal of the patient to hospital, and out of 342 deliveries there have been no deaths from puerperal diseases. There were, however, two deaths from scarlet fever, occurring while this disease was prevalent in soldiers’ families in the garrison. At Woolwich, among 751 deliveries, there have been 8 deaths, of which five were from puerperal diseases, but of these five deaths one took place in a woman who had gastric fever at the time of admission, and in other two women puerperal peritonitis came on after instrumental delivery. There was one death from embolism, one from exhaustion, and one from dropsy. The total death-rate in these two hospitals has been under 10 per 1,000. The deaths due to diseases and accidents of childbirth have been 6, or at the rate of 5½ per 1,000.

Of the other military hospitals, the statistics of which are given in Table IV., Devonport and Portsmouth are unsuitable adapted buildings. Aldershot Hospital consists of a number of huts joined together as a general female hospital, with accommodation for all kinds of cases, including lying-in cases. This arrangement is a very undesirable one, and the results have been unsatisfactory.

Table XIV. shows that the total mortality in this hospital has been 10·1 per 1,000. Of the total deaths 27 are attributed to diseases and accidents of childbirth, affording a mortality of 8·8 per 1,000, or double that of the healthy districts of England.

If we exclude Aldershot as being unfit for childbirth cases, we find that in the other seven hospitals the total mortality, as shown in Table XIV., has been 7·4 per 1,000. The mortality from puerperal diseases in these hospitals has been 2·7 per 1,000, and from diseases and accidents of childbirth 5·4 per 1,000.