DOCSLIB.ORG

Looking for Value in Hard Times How a New Approach to Priority Setting Can Help Improve Patient Care While Making Savings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Looking for Value in Hard Times How a New Approach to Priority Setting Can Help Improve Patient Care While Making Savings Learning report: Looking for value in hard times How a new approach to priority setting can help improve patient care while making savings August 2012 Identify Innovate Demonstrate Encourage © 2012 The Health Foundation Learning report: Looking for value in hard times is published by the Health Foundation, 90 Long Acre, London WC2E 9RA ISBN: 978-1-906461-42-3 Contents Commentary 2 1 Introduction 3 Context 4 2 What is Star? 6 A socio-technical approach to resource allocation 6 How Star works 8 3 The Star project in Sheffield 10 Background 10 Introducing Star in Sheffield 11 The Sheffield decision conference 12 What was the impact? 17 Lessons learned 19 4 Next steps 20 LOOKING FOR VALUE IN HARD TIMES 1 Commentary The NHS is under greater pressure than ever It soon became clear that something of real to secure high-quality, value-for-money health practical value was emerging and we are services. At the same time, commissioners therefore delighted that this methodological and providers are expected to involve research has been applied in practice. stakeholders – including patients and the public – in decisions. As this report shows, by using the Star approach, NHS Sheffield were able to agree As clinical commissioning groups in England changes to their eating disorder services begin to take on their new responsibilities, with clinicians, service users and other they will need tools that help them meet stakeholders. The changes they have made are these demands – and which enable them to expected to improve both patient care and demonstrate that they have done so. This value for money, with the project showing will be particularly the case where they have potential for substantial savings. to take difficult decisions that may involve disinvestment. The Health Foundation and LSE are currently working with a commercial provider and This report describes how NHS Sheffield used a group of clinical commissioning groups a new approach, called Star (‘socio-technical to pilot a Star toolkit, comprising a tool allocation of resources’), to re-allocate to aid deliberative decision making and a resources within its eating disorder services. training module. The toolkit will be made publicly available, free of charge, and will The Star approach emerged from a programme enable a step forward in transparent decision of research into value for money in healthcare making and planning resource use. However, carried out by Professor Gwyn Bevan and implementation of changes in service delivery, his team at the London School of Economics to achieve better value healthcare in the long and Political Science (LSE) and funded by the term, will rely upon the negotiation skills, Health Foundation. good management and tenacity of healthcare At the time the programme started in 2005, it providers, planners and commissioners. was not expected to develop tools or products; This report describes a methodology to rather, it was exploratory work to understand inform rational decision making – and its how a health economist’s view could add to application in practice. We hope that it will our knowledge of how to improve the quality both interest readers and encourage them to and value of healthcare. try the approach for themselves, using the As the work progressed, new techniques forthcoming Star toolkit. to look at comparative value of healthcare Helen Crisp options were developed. These were used in Assistant Director – Research and Evaluation conjunction with an innovative decision- The Health Foundation conferencing approach to involving stakeholders in decision making. 2 THE HEALTH FOUNDATION 1 Introduction This report describes a new approach to It works by producing simple visual models, priority setting called Star. The approach developed interactively with stakeholders, combines value for money analysis with so that everyone involved can understand stakeholder engagement. This allows the nature of the choices to be made, and those planning services to determine how the disadvantages of not changing current resources can be most effectively invested, practices. while the engagement of stakeholders means the decisions are understood and supported The Star approach has several unique by those most affected. The report sets out characteristics and considers the scale of how NHS Sheffield used Star to re-allocate impact that interventions have on costs resources within its eating disorder services. and on a population’s health. This enables By early 2012, indications suggested the new commissioners and providers to focus on strategy would reduce spending on inpatient reducing spending where total costs are high services by more than 50%. but total benefits are low, and increasing spending on activities that produces high Setting priorities, allocating resources, value at low cost. commissioning and redesigning services will all take place in a harsh financial climate for The Health Foundation funded the project the foreseeable future. At the same time, the to use the Star approach in practice, which NHS must strive to meet ever-rising demand was carried out by a research team from the and to improve the quality of patient care. London School of Economics and Political It must involve a wide range of partners – Science (LSE) working with NHS Sheffield. including local people and communities – in It builds on and complements the LSE’s earlier work with NHS Isle of Wight (see its decision making and must be able to show 1 that the way it has allocated resources is Commissioning with the Community for more evidence based, transparent and systematic. details). In contrast with the Isle of Wight, where the primary care trust had extra money Change is difficult, especially where to invest, NHS Sheffield wanted to increase disinvestment in services may be an option, health benefit without additional spending. and these challenges may appear all the more testing as responsibility for commissioning The Star approach involves patients, clinicians NHS services in England is passed to new and other stakeholders gauging the relative organisations – clinical commissioning benefits of interventions on a consistent basis. groups (CCGs). It avoids a situation where commissioners have only piecemeal data on the benefits of an This report describes a new approach to intervention and are consequently working priority setting called Star (socio-technical in the dark. This lack of data can make it hard allocation of resources). The approach is to engage people and convince clinicians, designed to help commissioners and others patients, carers and the general population pinpoint where they may be able to get that changes are needed. additional value from their resources by using them more effectively. 1 www.health.org.uk/publications/commissioning-with-the- community/ LOOKING FOR VALUE IN HARD TIMES 3 The approach focuses attention on identifying Engaging stakeholders in decisions key changes that are likely to have the greatest impact on population health. It has been The government argues that ‘commissioning shown to work not only in situations where has been too remote from the patients it is resources are growing but also where they intended to serve’, and says ‘We want local are not. It has also produced results where people to have a greater say in decisions that purchasers and providers form separate affect their health and care and have a clear 3 entities, and where (as in the Isle of Wight) route to influence the services they receive’. they are part of the same organisation. This CCGs must demonstrate ‘meaningful shows that the approach has the potential to engagement with patients, carers and their be useful both in the NHS in England and also communities’ as part of the authorisation more widely. process. They must include ‘mechanisms for The Health Foundation is currently gaining a broad range of views then analysing developing a Star toolkit that will help clinical and acting on these. It should be evident how commissioning groups, health boards and the views of individual patients are translated 4 others to make decisions on setting priorities, into commissioning decisions’. allocating resources and redesigning Every CCG must publish an annual and commissioning services. For more commissioning plan specifying how it information, email [email protected] intends to involve patients and the public in commissioning decisions. CCGs have a duty Context to involve the public in any changes that affect patient services, not just those with a Obtaining value for money has always been ‘significant’ impact. The NHS Commissioning an important aim for the NHS, as has a Board will assess how effectively CCGs do this. commitment to transparent and rational priority setting. The NHS Constitution also establishes as a guiding principle that the NHS should work in partnership with other organisations. The NHS has an explicit duty to ensure that patients and the public have a say in how services are planned. The Constitution also gives them the right ‘to be involved, directly or through representatives, in the planning of healthcare services, the development and consideration of proposals for changes in the way those services are provided, and in decisions to be made affecting the operation 2 of those services’. 3 Department of Health (2010). Liberating the NHS: Local democratic legitimacy in health. London: Department of Health. 4 Department of Health (2011). Developing Clinical 2 Department of Health (2012). The NHS Constitution for Commissioning Groups: Towards authorisation. London: England. London: Department of Health. Department of Health. 4 THE HEALTH FOUNDATION Improving productivity in the NHS The efficiency savings needed are difficult to make and, in practice, will require Chief executive Sir David Nicholson has commissioners to focus their efforts on a committed the NHS to finding £15–20bn in small number of priorities. To do this when efficiency savings by 2015 under the Quality, planning how best to prioritise resources, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention they will need tools to identify which options (QIPP) programme.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Staffordshire PCC Appeal
    BEFORE THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER BETWEEN PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Applicant - and - STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER Respondent _______________________________ GROUNDS OF APPEAL _______________________________ I. Introduction and Summary 1. The Applicant is Privacy International, a registered UK charity, campaigning for the right to privacy. 2. On 1 November 2016, Privacy International wrote to the Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner (“PCC”), Home Office, National Police Chiefs Council, National Crime Agency, Metropolitan Police Service, South Yorkshire Police, Avon and Somerset PCC, Kent PCC, Warwickshire PCC, West Mercia PCC and West Midlands PCC requesting information about the purchase and use of mobile phone surveillance equipment by the police forces and the regulatory and oversight regime governing the use of such equipment. This equipment can be referred to using a range of terms, including “Covert Communications Data Capture” (“CCDC”) equipment, “IMSI Catchers”, “IMSI Grabbers”, “Cell site simulators” and “Stingrays”. In these grounds, this equipment is hereafter referred to as “IMSI Catchers”. Privacy International’s initial request to the Staffordshire PCC is annexed to these grounds as Exhibit A. 3. On 15 December 2017, Privacy International submitted grounds of appeal to the Commissioner, following the Staffordshire PCC’s failure to respond to the initial request for information. Those grounds are annexed to these grounds as Exhibit B. 4. On 8 January 2018, the Commissioner issued a decision notice finding that the Staffordshire PCC had breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) 2000 by failing “to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days.” The Commissioner further directed the Staffordshire PCC “to comply with the request or to issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17” within 35 calendar days of the decision notice.
    [Show full text]
  • South Yorkshire Violence Reduction Unit Information for Partners
    South Yorkshire Violence Reduction Unit article for partner websites and intranet The South Yorkshire Violence Reduction Unit is based at Shepcote Lane in Sheffield and is working across South Yorkshire to prevent and reduce violence. In South Yorkshire, we are taking a public health approach to preventing and reducing violence. This means that we look at the causes of violence, working in partnership to stop violence before it starts, halt the progression of violence once it has already begun and provide ways out for people already entrenched in violent behaviour. The following animation explains the public health approach to violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZOEnCd6uiI&t=22s The South Yorkshire Violence Reduction Unit partnership is led by Dr Alan Billings, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and consists of: • Office of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner • South Yorkshire Police • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council • Sheffield City Council • Public Health England • Barnsley Clinical Commissioning Group • Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group • Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group • Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group • National Probation Service • Community Rehabilitation Company • Department for Work and Pensions • Youth Offending Teams • Education sector representatives • Community, Faith and Voluntary sector representatives All partners are clear that community voices and ideas are central to preventing and reducing violence in South Yorkshire. We have voluntary and community sector representatives from across the four districts (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield) working together and sitting on our Violence Reduction Executive Board. In addition to this, we want to ensure that we hear the voice of community members who are not often given the opportunity to be involved in processes from the very beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Headline Findings from the South Yorkshire Community Sector Resilience Survey
    Headline findings from the South Yorkshire Community Sector Resilience Survey Sam Caldwell Head of Grants [email protected] Full report will follow These are only some initial headline findings from the survey. Full analysis of the data will be undertaken by the University of Sheffield, and a full report will follow. We hope that this survey forms a basis for further research into the Community Sector in South Yorkshire. Thanks Thanks to all of our partners who helped us develop the survey and collect responses: • Barnsley CVS • Voluntary Action Doncaster • Voluntary Action Rotherham • Voluntary Action Sheffield • SYFAB • Sheffield City Region • South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Integrated Care System • Voluntary Action Leeds (initial survey design and wider work across Yorkshire) Good response to survey Organisation structure Annual Turnover 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Registered Charity Less than £10k 3% Company Limited by Guarantee 6% 6% Charitable Incorporated Organisation Between £10k and £100k 27% (CIO) Group or unincorporated association Between £100k and £500k Community Interest Company (CIC) Between £500k and £1 24% million A Mutual (e.g. Co-operative or Community Benefit Society, Credit… Between £1 million and £5 million Company Limited by Share Over £5 million 34% Don't know Other Responses from across South Yorkshire What Local Authority area are you based in? What Local Authority area(s) do you cover? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1% Barnsley 4% Doncaster Rotherham 17% Sheffield Bassetlaw Bradford Barnsley Calderdale Doncaster Craven
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing Your Hospital
    Choosing your hospital Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust For most medical conditions, you can now choose where and when to have your treatment. This booklet explains more about choosing your hospital. You will also find information about the hospitals you can choose from. Second edition December 2006 Contents What is patient choice? 1 Making your choice 2 How to use this booklet 3 Where can I have my treatment? 4 Your hospitals A to Z 7 Your questions answered 33 How to book your appointment 35 What do the specialty names mean? 36 What does the healthcare jargon mean? 38 Where can I find more information and support? 40 How do your hospitals score? 41 Hospital score table 46 What is patient choice? If you and your GP decide that you need to see a specialist for more treatment, you can now choose where and when to have your treatment from a list of hospitals or clinics. Why has patient choice been introduced? Research has shown that patients want to be more involved in making decisions and choosing their healthcare. Most of the patients who are offered a choice of hospital consider the experience to be positive and valuable. The NHS is changing to give you more choice and flexibility in how you are treated. Your choices Your local choices are included in this booklet. If you do not want to receive your treatment at a local hospital, your GP will be able to tell you about your choices of other hospitals across England. As well as the hospitals listed in this booklet, your GP may be able to suggest community-based services, such as GPs with Special Interests or community clinics.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaque Schemes Across England
    PLAQUE SCHEMES ACROSS ENGLAND Plaque schemes are listed below according to region and county, apart from thematic schemes which have a national remit. The list includes: the name of the erecting body (with a hyperlink to a website where possible); a note of whether the scheme is active, dormant, proposed or complete; and a link to an email contact where available. While not all organisations give details of their plaques on their websites, the information included on the register should enable you to contact those responsible for a particular scheme. In a few cases, plaques are described as ‘orphaned’, which indicates that they are no longer actively managed or maintained by the organisation that erected them. English Heritage is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. BEDFORDSHIRE Bedford Borough ACTIVE Council Various historical schemes BEDFORDSHIRE Biggleswade COMPLETED Contact EAST History Society 1997-2004 BEDFORDSHIRE Dunstable COMPLETED Contact Town Council CAMBRIDGESHIRE Cambridge Blue ACTIVE Contact Plaques Scheme since 2001 CAMBRIDGESHIRE Eatons ACTIVE Contact Community Association 1 PLAQUE SCHEMES ACROSS ENGLAND CAMBRIDGESHIRE Great Shelford ACTIVE Contact Oral History Group CAMBRIDGESHIRE Littleport Society AD HOC One-off plaque erected in 2011, more hoped for. CAMBRIDGESHIRE Peterborough ACTIVE Contact Civic Society since the 1960s CAMBRIDGESHIRE St Ives ACTIVE Contact EAST Civic Society since 2008 CAMBRIDGESHIRE St Neots Local ACTIVE Contact History Society ESSEX (Basildon) PROPOSED Contact Foundation
    [Show full text]
  • Gym Membership and Health Check for Two Locations
    Gym Membership and Health Check for Two Locations: Avon (South West) - Bath Bedfordshire (South East) - Bedford Bedfordshire (South East) - Luton Berkshire (South West) - Reading Buckinghamshire (South East) - High Wycombe Cambridgeshire (South East) - Peterborough Cheshire (North) - Crewe Cheshire (North) - Runcorn County Antrim (Northern Ireland) - Ballymena County Antrim (Northern Ireland) - Belfast County Down (Northern Ireland) - Bangor County Durham (North) - Stockton On Tees Derbyshire (Midlands) - Chesterfield Derbyshire (Midlands) - Derby Devon (South West) - Bournemouth Devon (South West) - Exeter East Riding of Yorkshire (North) - Hull East Sussex (South East) - Brighton East Sussex (South East) - Bristol East Sussex (South East) - Bristol East Sussex (South East) - Bristol East Sussex (South East) - Eastbourne Essex (South East) - Basildon Essex (South East) - Brentwood Essex (South East) - Chelmsford Essex (South East) - Colchester Essex (South East) - Southend On Sea Glamorganshire (Wales) - Cardiff Gloucestershire (South West) - Cheltenham Greater London (London) - Alperton Greater London (London) - Balham Greater London (London) - Beckenham Greater London (London) - Bloomsbury Greater London (London) - Brixton Greater London (London) - Harringay Greater London (London) - Harrow Greater London (London) - Holloway Greater London (London) - Ilford Greater London (London) - Lewisham Greater London (London) - Londond Greater London (London) - London Greater London (London) - London
    [Show full text]
  • Defra Statistics: Agricultural Facts – Yorkshire & the Humber
    Defra statistics: Agricultural facts – Yorkshire & the Humber (commercial holdings at June 2019 (unless stated) The Yorkshire & the Humber region comprises the East Riding, Kingston upon Hull, N & NE Lincolnshire, City of York, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire. Parts of the Peak District, Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors National Parks are within the region. For the Yorkshire & the Humber region: Total Income from Farming increased by 26% between 2015 and 2019 to £452 million. The biggest contributors to the value of the output (£2.5 billion), which were pigs for meat (£382 million), wheat (£324 million), poultry meat (£267 million) and milk (£208 million), together account for 48%. (Sourced from Defra Aggregate agricultural accounts) In the Yorkshire & the Humber the average farm size in 2019 was 93 hectares. This is larger than the English average of 87 hectares. Predominant farm types in the Yorkshire & the Humber region in 2019 were Grazing Livestock farms and Cereals farms which accounted for 32% and 30% of farmed area in the region. Although Pig farms accounted for a much smaller proportion of the farmed area, the region accounted for 37% of the English pig population. Land Labour Yorkshire & England Yorkshire & England the Humber the Humber Total farmed area (thousand 1,136 9,206 Total Labour(a) hectares People: 32,397 306,374 Average farm size (hectares) 93 87 Per farm(b) 2.7 2.9 % of farmed area that is: Regular workers Rented (for at least 1 year) 33% 33% People: 7,171 68,962 Arable area(a) 52% 52% Per farm(b) 0.6 0.6 Permanent pasture 35% 36% Casual workers (a) Includes arable crops, uncropped arable land and temporary People: 2,785 45,843 grass.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheffield City Region
    City Relationships: Economic Linkages in Northern city regions Sheffield City Region November 2009 The Northern Way Stella House, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 8NY Telephone: 0191 22 6200 Website: www.thenorthernway.co.uk © One NorthEast on behalf of The Northern Way Copyright in the design and typographical arrangement rests with One North East. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as copyright One NorthEast and the title of the publication specified. City Relationships: 1 Economic Linkages in Northern city regions Sheffield City Region Contents Summary 2 1: Introduction 6 2: Background 10 3: Labour market relationships within the city region 17 4: Firm links and supply chains 25 5: Characterising links between Sheffield 32 and neighbouring towns and cities 6: Key findings and policy conclusions 40 Annex A – Interviewees 45 2 City Relationships: Economic Linkages in Northern city regions Sheffield City Region Summary This is one of seven reports published as part of the City Relationships research programme. The research aimed to test a hypothesis derived from previous research that stronger and more complementary economic relationships between towns and cities in the North of England would generate higher levels of sustainable economic growth and development. The project examined the economic relationships between the five most significant economic centres in the North – Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield – and selected cities and towns nearby, looking in particular at labour market linkages and the connections between businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Subsidising Bus Travel on the Occurrence of Road Traffic Casualties
    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1987, 41, 50-54 Effects of subsidising bus travel on the occurrence of road traffic casualties JONATHAN P NICHOLL, MICHAEL R FREEMAN, AND BRIAN T WILLIAMS From the Department ofCommunity Medicine, University ofSheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX SUMMARY Between 1975 and April 1986, public transport by bus in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire, England, was increasingly subsidised. Trends in road traffic accident casualties between 1974 and 1983 in all the six provincial English metropolitan counties have been compared in order to examine the possible effect of this unique subsidy on the incidence of road traffic accident casualties. During that period the total number of casualties in South Yorkshire did not change significantly compared to the other metropolitan counties. However, the proportion of all casualties in South Yorkshire who were bus occupants did increase relative to other metropolitan counties, indicating either an increase in the amount of bus travel or a decrease in travel by other modes. There was a large increase in bus patronage in South Yorkshire relative to the other metropolitan counties, and the conclusion is that it is the transport policy in South Yorkshire which resulted in an actual increase in distances travelled by bus. Since bus is the safest form of road travel, it is concluded that the public transport subsidy in South Yorkshire has benefited the health of the local population by providing the social amenity of additional travel at the least additional health cost. At 1 April 1986, the six provincial metropolitan Table I Casualties to persons carried.
    [Show full text]
  • HS2 & the Economy: New Economic Analysis
    HS2 & the economy: new economic analysis Laura Webster, Strategy & Analysis, HS2 Ltd The exam question What is the potential delivered by HS2? …and what does this mean for our economic geography? 2 KPMG analysis differs from transport appraisal Top-down Bottom-up Economic Approach: Approach: Performance Measures the change in Measures value economic of changes in output directly economic through output by changes in estimating Business Market production changes in efficiency. production costs for individual firms, and changes in production costs Transport Costs generated from improved market efficiency. 3 Our analysis starts with connectivity 4 Improving connectivity means increasing market access LABOUR BUSINESS CONNECTIVITY CONNECTIVITY How many people How many are willing to LOCATION businesses commute into are within reach work here? from here? ↸ C 5 HS2 delivers significant and widespread improvements in connectivity Change in business connectivity by rail Leeds 20% Greater Manchester 19% Sheffield 23% Derby & Nottingham 23% Birmingham 21% London 9% 6 Labour connectivity also improves as a result of HS2 (generally to a lesser extent) City regions Change in labour Change in business connectivity connectivity Derby-Nottingham 14.7% 23.2% Greater Manchester 1.4% 18.8% Greater London 6.9% 8.8% South Yorkshire 31.8% 22.5% West Midlands 15.7% 21.1% West Yorkshire 9.1% 19.7% Rest of Great Britain 5.3% 11.3% 7 HS2 could boost annual productivity by £15bn Cambridge Total impact for UK 250,000 economy jobs economy: £5bn tax £15bn receipts of
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Skylight South Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue
    Crisis Skylight South Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority partnership: Helping homeless people and those in vulnerable housing situations to effectively access and safely maintain tenancies Independent evaluation report prepared by the Dartington Service Design Lab November 2015 – December 2017 2 Crisis Skylight South Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority partnership Contents 3 Who is Contents Crisis? Executive Summary 4 Setting the scene 6 Edinburgh Crisis is the national The method 10 charity for homeless Demographics 13 people. Crisis is dedicated to ending homelessness Impact on members 16 Newcastle by delivering life changing Reflections 20 services and campaigning for change. Conclusions and recommendations 26 Appendix 1. Partnership organisations (not exhaustive) 30 Crisis offers education, employment, Appendix 2. Hothouse for Innovation initiative 31 housing, arts and wellbeing services to address individual needs and help Merseyside South Yorkshire homeless people to transform their lives. Demonstrating tangible results and continual improvement is central Birmingham Coventry to the Crisis model. They are determined campaigners, South Wales working to prevent people from Oxford becoming homeless and advocating London solutions informed by research and direct experience. Brent London Croydon 4 Crisis Skylight South Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority partnership Executive Summary 5 Reflections Recommendations Reflection 1. Crisis members who Recommendation 1. Increase the Executive had engaged with CSSY and SYFRA reach of the Renting Ready course via partnership activities reported development of online content. better awareness of their rights and entitlements as a tenant, and reported Recommendation 2. Further enhance increased confidence in being able to CSSY’s presence at organisations/ Summary maintain a tenancy (if secured).
    [Show full text]
  • South Yorkshire
    INDUSTRIAL HISTORY of SOUTH RKSHI E Association for Industrial Archaeology CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 6 STEEL 26 10 TEXTILE 2 FARMING, FOOD AND The cementation process 26 Wool 53 DRINK, WOODLANDS Crucible steel 27 Cotton 54 Land drainage 4 Wire 29 Linen weaving 54 Farm Engine houses 4 The 19thC steel revolution 31 Artificial fibres 55 Corn milling 5 Alloy steels 32 Clothing 55 Water Corn Mills 5 Forging and rolling 33 11 OTHER MANUFACTUR- Windmills 6 Magnets 34 ING INDUSTRIES Steam corn mills 6 Don Valley & Sheffield maps 35 Chemicals 56 Other foods 6 South Yorkshire map 36-7 Upholstery 57 Maltings 7 7 ENGINEERING AND Tanning 57 Breweries 7 VEHICLES 38 Paper 57 Snuff 8 Engineering 38 Printing 58 Woodlands and timber 8 Ships and boats 40 12 GAS, ELECTRICITY, 3 COAL 9 Railway vehicles 40 SEWERAGE Coal settlements 14 Road vehicles 41 Gas 59 4 OTHER MINERALS AND 8 CUTLERY AND Electricity 59 MINERAL PRODUCTS 15 SILVERWARE 42 Water 60 Lime 15 Cutlery 42 Sewerage 61 Ruddle 16 Hand forges 42 13 TRANSPORT Bricks 16 Water power 43 Roads 62 Fireclay 16 Workshops 44 Canals 64 Pottery 17 Silverware 45 Tramroads 65 Glass 17 Other products 48 Railways 66 5 IRON 19 Handles and scales 48 Town Trams 68 Iron mining 19 9 EDGE TOOLS Other road transport 68 Foundries 22 Agricultural tools 49 14 MUSEUMS 69 Wrought iron and water power 23 Other Edge Tools and Files 50 Index 70 Further reading 71 USING THIS BOOK South Yorkshire has a long history of industry including water power, iron, steel, engineering, coal, textiles, and glass.
    [Show full text]