Accidents in hospital, causes and prevention.

  • Great Britain. South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.
Date:
1971
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Accidents in hospital, causes and prevention. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    91/148 (page 77)
    3.104 SMUT AND SMOKE DAMAGE — CLEAN AIR ACTS 1956 and 1968 The Circular HM (63) 42 drew the attention of hospital authorities to the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 1956, and advised them that Section 22 (1) of the Act, in effect, requires National Health Service hospitals to comply with the Act subject to the sanction of a Ministerial enquiry. The Clean Air Act, 1968, extended the provisions of the principal Act, and Regulations brought the Act into full operation on 1st October, 1969. - In November, 1969, the Department of Health and Social Security issued a reminder of the need to secure maximum compliance with the Clean Air Acts and pointed out that the Acts empower local authorities to report to the Secretary of State any cases of emission from National Health Service hospitals of smoke, grit or dust which, but for the immunity of the Crown, would be offences under the Acts. The Secretary of State has responsibility for enquiring into the circumstances and, if cause for complaint is revealed, for using all practicable means to prevent or minimise the emission and to prevent a recurrence. A number of claims have arisen from alleged smut emission from boiler chimneys causing damage: (a) In one case complaints were made to a Member of Parliament and the local medical officer of health. Corrosive smuts emitted from a new boiler plant caused damage to the paintwork of a car parked in a roadway in the vicinity of the hospital. Other complaints in the same area concerned damage to paintwork of houses and garments on garden clothes lines. To prevent a nuisance occurring again, it was subsequently found necessary to approve capital expenditure for the erection of a new chimney and installation of a chemical injection unit. A later complaint from householders in the vicinity of this same hospital was attributed to attempts being made to burn plastic material in an incinerator. There have been no further complaints since alternative arrangements were made for disposal of plastic materials. (b) This case differs from the former in that it resulted in damage to a car parked within the confines of the hospital premises. Following a change-over from solid fuel to oil-firing there was consistent trouble from smut emission. This was most marked during the night. The oil company were asked to investigate and suggested a change to lighter, albeit more expensive, oil. In addition, staff were 27