Search

Abstract: In this paper, we look at the different ways that visual signscapes along an inner London street produces particular types of translocal connections to different spaces and places that are physically distanciated yet symbolically proximate. We are particularly interested in examining these signscapes for the ways that they evoke particular connections between migrant entrepreneurs and a diverse clientele, between the colonial pasts and postcolonial presents, between the ordinary and the global city, and between everyday livelihoods and economic exchanges. We suggest that these signscapes are translocal since they evoke material and embodied links between the street and its neighbourhoods, while at the same time connecting the street to a wider spatial network of routes/roots which the migrant entrepreneurs have taken to establish their livelihoods on the street. Thus the Walworth Road, a place where a multiplicity of connections are made between different places through these signs, becomes the node or location of particular types of mobility and migration undertaken by migrants and their clients. It becomes a translocal street as it situates mobile actors and identities within the physical and social forms of economic exchange, shop front displays and signage. The local ‘multi-culture’ on this street is made and remade through these particular connections which are material, embodied, everyday and ordinary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines issues arising from migrant laborers in London, England who are engaged in low paid work. At issue is London's role in the hypothesis that global cities power both ends of the labor market at once, propelling the need for skilled, high paid workers at one end of the spectrum and the requirement for unskilled low-paid workers at the other. Among other issues the article examines a number of topics including the position of low wage workers in London's economy, how such households cope with low wages and the debate about public policy.

Introduction: Maternity Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data were linked to birth registration and NHS Numbers for Babies (NN4B) data to bring together some key demographic and clinical data items not otherwise available at a national level. This project added to earlier work involving linkage of birth registration records to NN4B records., Methods: Birth registration and NN4B records were linked to Maternity HES delivery records and also Maternity HES baby records using the NHS Number or other indirect identifiers if NHS Number was missing.Data quality and completeness of Maternity HES were assessed in relation to birth registration data wherever possible. For information not collected at registration, NN4B data were used to validate quality of Maternity HES., Results: Overall, 91 per cent of Maternity HES delivery records could be linked to the birth registration/NHS Numbers for Babies records and 84 per cent of Maternity HES baby records were linked.In 2005 only 3 per cent of Maternity HES records had mother's NHS number missing, compared with 30 per cent in the NN4B dataset. This did not reflect the extent to which Maternity HES data items were missing or discordant. Over a quarter of all linked Maternity HES records for singleton babies had one or more of the following data items missing: birthweight, gestational age, birth status, sex, and date of birth of the baby. On the other hand, for data items where information was stated such as birthweight, birth status, and sex for singleton babies, there was good agreement between Maternity HES and linked birth registration and NN4B data.Although NN4B records the ethnic category of the baby as defined by the mother, and Maternity HES records mother's ethnic category, 87 per cent of the linked records had the same ethnic group., Conclusion: Even though a good linkage rate was obtained, the method used will be simplified before data for 2007 are linked. To gain the maximum benefit from this linkage in future years, improvements are urgently needed in the quality and completeness of the data contained in Maternity HES.List of Tables, 55.

Organizational characteristics in English NHS hospitals and the experiences of patients with three common cancers - breast, colorectal and lung - were examined using secondary data analyses. Two specific measures of satisfaction, Respect and Dignity, reflecting inpatient care, and Communication reflecting hospital outpatient care, were drawn from a national survey of cancer patients after first hospital treatment. They were compared at hospital level with hospital cancer service standards, and measures of hospital provision, each drawn from national surveys. Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals with fewer complaints, slower admission procedures and a greater proportion of medicine consultants, for breast and colorectal cancers only. For breast cancer alone, Respect and Dignity was greater in hospitals achieving more participation in meetings by lead team members at the cancer unit level. For lung cancer alone, there were tumour-specific team organizational measures (relating to outpatient assessment) associated with Communication. However, the majority of recorded standards did not show associations, and there were occasional negative associations (dissatisfaction). The impact of organizational factors on patients may be examined through observational studies when experimental designs are not possible. Understanding how organizational factors affect quality of care for cancer patients can contribute to planning and management of cancer services.

Background: We have investigated cancer patient satisfaction with care and the extent to which it varies between and within hospitals., Design and Methods: A national survey of cancer patients in England with questions in 10 different dimensions for four common cancers: breast, colorectal, lung and prostate (55,674 patients). We compared hospitals across tumour types, and against the national average., Results: Dissatisfaction was greater (p<0.001) in younger, female patients. Breast cancer patients expressed least, and prostate cancer patients expressed greatest dissatisfaction. Breast, colorectal and prostate cancers showed significant (p<0.001) pair-wise correlations for standardised satisfaction scores, particularly for in-hospital care. Summed hospital satisfaction scores showed significant associations across different dimensions of care., Conclusions: Cancer patient satisfaction is measurably different between hospitals, as well as by tumour type. For many aspects of care there is evidence of systemic hospital-level factors that influence satisfaction as well as factors common to the care pathways experienced by individual patients. Factors amenable to clinical or managerial intervention deserve further investigation.

Objective: To investigate whether cancer service standards are associated with survival for breast, colorectal and lung cancers at population level., Methods: Standards of hospital cancer services in England, measured in 2001, were aggregated for 30 cancer networks covering populations of between 500 000 and 3 million people, and compared with 1-year and 5-year relative cancer survival for the incident period 1996-2001, using rank correlation., Results: Relative survival and the cancer standards each showed statistically significant differences across cancer networks. For tumour-specific services, the total score of 35 standards was associated with longer relative survival for both colorectal and lung cancers (p<0.05), but not breast cancer, while colorectal cancer survival was strongly (p<0.01) associated with the specific standard "written agreement describing referral guidelines", and lung cancer (p<0.05) with two other guideline standards. There were also associations of longer survival with two measures of nursing staff specialist qualifications. Compliance with general standards for cancer services was not associated with survival for breast cancer, and showed only borderline (p<0.1) associations for colo-rectal cancer, while some standards on medical and management lead staff were significantly associated (p<0.05) with poorer survival for lung cancer. Overall, compliance with standards for hospital pathology and radiology services also showed no associations with survival., Conclusion: This study suggests that compliance with some clinical service standards, such as guidelines, could contribute to better survival at population level, while more general organisational aspects of cancer services may not directly improve survival.

The Cancer Plan for England, introduced in 2000, has promoted cancer service specialization. We have investigated how far specialization and general hospital factors each contributed to service performance for four common cancers-breast, colorectal, lung and prostate-at the time of the Cancer Plan. Performance measures of service standards, waiting time to treatment, satisfaction with care, in-hospital mortality and population-level survival were identified from secondary data sets for 167 acute hospitals and 34 cancer networks in England. We correlated rankings of networks and hospitals between the data sets using non-parametric statistics. At cancer network level, peer-review service standards were associated (P < 0.05) with 1-year survival for colorectal and lung cancers, and waiting times for lung cancer. At hospital level, standards were associated (P < 0.01) with waiting time to treatment for breast and colorectal cancers. However, there were stronger associations between specializations within hospitals: rankings of breast, colorectal and prostate cancers were highly associated (P < 0.001) for 5-year survival, patient satisfaction, standards and in-hospital mortality. Hospital-level differences appear to contribute more to variations in cancer performance than specialization differences within hospitals. The findings may be used for planning and commissioning better cancer services.