It will be noticed that these percentages vary but slightly, or to a negligible extent. Roughly speaking, about half the patients try to be careful, and half do not try, or do not succeed if they attempt it. Furthermore, it will be noticed that the time element has little to do with making a patient careful. The natural supposition would be that a patient visited for one or two years would show a marked increase of carefulness over those who had been under supervision but a few months. Yet there is virtually no difference between them, 50.5% of the three-months class being careful, as against 51.69% of the two-years class. These figures, we believe, show conclusively that long-continued teaching does not necessarily lead to satisfactory results. They also show that the patient left in his own home, even under constant supervision, is unable to achieve a degree of technique which means positive protection to those around him. There is but one conclusion to be drawn from these facts—not that the nurse is useless, but that the patient at large is dangerous. It proves the necessity for hospital care. The hospital for a patient to die in appeals less to public sympathy than as a place in which he may get well. But it is better economy. Care of the open case, during his last and most infectious stages, is care which strikes at the very root of the evil. Until this fact is realized and full provision made for these cases, it will be a waste of time and money to spend them on superficial or half-way measures. If our goal is the elimination of tuberculosis, we should concentrate our efforts upon radical and fundamental methods. At present, however, we can conceive of no community sufficiently advanced or far-seeing to make adequate provision for these last-stage cases. Therefore, the patients who make up the difference between the number of those needing hospital care, and those receiving hospital care, must be cared for in their homes by the nurse. Never for a moment should home supervision be considered a satisfactory substitute for hospital accommodation. The nurse’s efforts, no matter how thorough and conscientious, can never entirely remove the danger. Her care often lessens it to a marked degree, but never absolutely eliminates it. It is at best a makeshift, a stopgap—better than nothing, often much better than nothing, but never for a moment the proper alternative to removing the patient from his home. No one knows better than the nurse herself the inadequacy, the futility, of even the closest supervision. =Chief Duty of the Nurse.= For this reason, the chief, the absolutely most important duty of the nurse is to induce the infectious patient to go from his home into an institution. To accomplish this end, she must bring every effort to bear upon the patient and his family, and appeal to them from every conceivable angle. This is her one great duty—the paramount reason for her existence.