PICU Design
An activity room with access outside. Project team
Client: Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust. Project manager/Cost adviser: Arcadis (formerly EC Harris). Architect: P+HS Architects (Project lead: Cath Lake, Pete Stead). Contractor: Interserve. Structural Engineers: JNP. M&E Engineers: CAD 21. Landscape Architects: Southern Green. Interiors: Re-Design Interiors.
physical layout was not conducive to modern care, and, while there was access to external space, it was limited to an enclosed roof garden, where, depending on service-user needs, at a minimum 1:1 supervision was necessary. The existing ward configuration made it difficult for staff to work, and this factor, associated with problems with observation, resulted in less time for therapeutic activity.
STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION Following the brief, P+HS worked closely with the estates and stakeholder representatives in a study which not only considered the negatives of the current service, but also the positives. Locality was important; people knew the centre, and its accessibility within Sheffield provided a recognised facility for individuals, carers, and families. Retaining the PICU at the Longley Centre ensured that service-users would not have to travel out of the area for treatment. The service was supported and provided by the inpatient accommodation within the Longley Centre. This immediate connection allows for transition directly into the PICU, called ‘Endcliffe’, without the need for travel and the associated distress and disturbance. The decision to relocate the unit to the front of
the centre, within the former CAMHS unit, provided both opportunities and constraints. Championing the principle to refurbish, rather than demolish, reduced the impact of environmental waste, but provided a challenge to ensure that a fit-for-purpose, future-proof, and sustainable facility was provided within a building originally built in the early 1970s. A hybrid of refurbishment and new-build was chosen to make the most of the existing facility, and provide an architectural enhancement to the building.
1 8 THE NE TWORK J u l y 2 0 1 6
The attractive and welcoming lounge area.
SOLVING THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES Early in the commission, the initial brief evolved from a single ward design towards the need to create a new main entrance to the hospital, thus facilitating future phases of redevelopment. Here, the challenge was to radically improve wayfinding on the hospital site, while providing a direct, but discrete and separate, access to the PICU. Further challenges related to the complexity
of providing a refurbishment within the existing structure, and to linking the design across two levels of the existing building. Not only did the existing structure determine the alignment of the floor levels, but the concrete frame created a significant obstacle for the distribution of new M&E services. The team worked closely to design the structure and services in coordinated detail, ensuring that innovative solutions to contemporary building services requirements were met. Taking a strategic view, early considerations were made as part of the concept design regarding the wider infrastructure serving the Longley Centre, and how this project was a catalyst to its longer-term redevelopment. A robust strategy was developed to ensure that the PICU would be standalone, and not impact on the clinical service-users as future phases of works are planned and completed at the Longley Centre. This strategy will undoubtedly benefit the development and delivery of the future phases,
What people are saying
“What we’re saying here is that mental healthcare is as good if not better than healthcare across the rest of the system.” – Dr Mike Hunter, clinical director, Inpatient Services, SHSC NHS FT. “We carried out a focus group with service-users and the feedback was really positive. They report the difference the new unit makes compared to the old one; particular things mentioned included: • Outdoor space is so much better than old unit. • More areas to be in, therefore avoiding conflict. • Less use of seclusion – none used at the time of the meeting since opening. • Staff report that it is much better to have separate spaces for people to work in, really positive to have the staff room, and that the unit is much quieter even when there are distressed service-users there.” – Lisa Johnson, assistant service director, Inpatient Directorate, SHSC NHS FT.
“Bigger, brighter space where you can have some privacy and there is more opportunity for individualised care. It’s good, not only for service-users, but also for staff.” – Adelaide Mukasa, ward manager, SHSC NHS FT. “How the before and after building compare is like night and day. From a dark old building, to
this fantastic bright, spacious environment; it’s going to be brilliant for patient care.” – Dr Mike Hunter, clinical director, Inpatient Services, SHSC NHS FT.
‘Championing the principle to refurbish, rather than demolish, reduced the impact of environmental waste’
ensuring that the impact on clinical services in the PICU is reduced.
ENGAGEMENT KEY At the heart of the design intent was the reminder that quality and choice of space are fundamental to good design, for the benefit of service-users, carers, and staff alike. The key to the scheme’s success was establishing robust project working groups and links to key individuals within the service. The design team was selected on its ability
to react to, and meet, client needs, and from the very outset we worked with the Trust’s stakeholder groups to develop and deliver the design. We challenged the clinical team throughout the design process, to ensure that the aspirations of new clinical service models would be supported by the building design, and that we really understood the requirements of how the service would operate. A robust design sign-off and approval process ensured that proper governance was established, and that all
Photos courtesy of P+HS Architects.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28