PREFACE.

In the year 1862 the Committee of the Nightingale Fund, with a view to extending the advantages of their Training Institution, entered into an arrangement with the authorities of St. John’s House, under which wards were fitted up in the new part of King’s College Hospital, opening out of the great staircase and shut up within their own doors, for the reception of Midwifery cases. The wards were under the charge of the (then) Lady Superintendent. Arrangements were made for medical attendance, a skilled midwife was engaged, a certain number of pupil nurses were admitted for training; and hopes were entertained that this new branch of our Training School would confer a great benefit on the poor, especially in country districts, where trained Midwifery nurses are needed.

Every precaution had apparently been taken to render the Midwifery Department perfectly safe; and it was not until the school had been upwards of five years in existence, that the attention of the Nightingale Committee was called to the fact that deaths from puerperal diseases had taken place in each of the preceding years.

During the period of nearly six years that the wards were in use, the records show that 780 women had been delivered in the institution, and that out of this number twenty-six[[1]] had died—a mortality of 33·3 per 1,000.

The most fatal year was 1867, in which year nine out of the twenty-six deaths took place. In the month of January a pregnant woman, who was under treatment for erysipelas in the hospital, was delivered in a general medical ward, No. 4, in the first-built wing of the hospital. A midwife was told off to attend her, who was not suffered to be near the midwifery wards for a considerable time. The erysipelas case died of puerperal fever; and this death was followed by a succession of puerperal deaths in the lying-in wards until November, when the wards were as soon as possible closed.

An analysis of the causes of death showed that, with the exception of one death from hæmorrhage, not a single death had taken place from accidents incidental to childbearing during the whole six years. There were three deaths due to diseases not necessarily concomitants of this condition; while of the others, twenty-three in number, no fewer than seventeen were due to puerperal fever, three to puerperal peritonitis, two to pyæmia, and one to metritis.

The following table gives the actual fates and dates:—

Midwifery Statistics, King’s College Hospital.
Year Total Deliveries Fatal Cases Deaths to Labours
Date of Birth Nature of Labour Cause of Death Date of Death
1862 97 Nov. 6 Natural Puerperal peritonitis Nov. 25 1 in 32·3
„ 30 Twins Phthisis and puerperal fever Dec. 27
Dec. 10 Natural Puerperal peritonitis Dec. 20
1863 105 Jan. 10 Natural. Child still-born Puerperal fever Jan. 16 1 in 52·5
April 29 Natural Puerperal fever May 20
1864 141 Feb. 16 Natural Puerperal fever Feb. 25 1 in 47
April 14 Induced Pyæmia April 29
Dec. 1 Born in cab Hæmorrhage Dec. 7
1865 163 Jan. 30 Natural Embolism Feb. 12 1 in 32·6
Feb. 8 Natural Puerperal fever Feb. 18
June 24 Forceps Puerperal metritis and pelvis cellulitis July 30
Oct. 20 Forceps Laceration of perinæum, puerperal fever Nov. 3
Oct. 29 Natural Puerperal fever Nov. 9
1866 150 Jan. 10 Natural Gastro-enteritis Jan. 20 1 in 30
Mar. 24 Natural Retained placenta, puerperal fever April 10
Oct. 8 Placenta prævia. Turning Emphysema and bronchitis Oct. 10
Nov. 10 Forceps Peritonitis Nov. 15
Dec. 4 Natural Puerperal fever Dec. 31
1867 125 Jan. 10 (Had erysipelas when admitted[[2]]) Puerperal fever Jan. 30 1 in 13·8
Feb. 7 Natural Considerable hæmorrhage, puerperal fever Feb. 22
„ 8 Natural Puerperal fever Feb. 22
April 12 Turning Puerperal fever April 22
May 18 Natural Pyæmia May 27
June 4 Natural Puerperal fever June 19
July 26 Natural Puerperal fever Aug. 11
Nov. 5 Twins: 1st dead, 2nd by turning Puerperal fever Nov. 10
„ 8 Forceps Laceration of vagina, puerperal fever Nov. 14
Total 781 deaths: 27 1 in 28·9

Under these deplorable circumstances the closing of the wards was a matter of course; and since that event we have been anxiously enquiring whether it would be justifiable to re-open our Midwifery Nursing School under other conditions.

This question is discussed in the following pages, from a basis of statistical facts supplied by the best authorities; and a few proposals have been added, with the view of turning to the best account our past experience, by extracting from it any leading principles which may present themselves for practical application in the future construction and management of Lying-in Institutions, and more especially in connection with means of training Midwifery nurses.

These Introductory Notes, collected and put together under circumstances of all but overwhelming business and illness, are now thrown out merely as a nucleus, in the hope that others will be kind enough to supplement, to add, and to alter; in fact, only as a hook with a modest little fish on it—a bait to catch other and finer fish.

The facts themselves, the nucleus, have been made as correct as it was possible, and as would have been done for a finished work. But the facts themselves are only put forth as feelers—feelers to feel my own way.

I need scarcely say either that these ‘Notes’ are not at all meant to discuss every point which presents itself in Midwifery statistics. On the contrary, they are, for the moment, purposely limited to the consideration of facts immediately relating to the present object.

Let me thank once more with true gratitude all those who have so kindly supplied me with help and information, some of whose names will appear in the following pages.