RELOCATION MANAGEMENT
Redistributing furniture and equipment should be prioritised.
Jenny Thorncroft
Jenny Thorncroft is director and co-founder of JTS Relocations, a specialist relocation business delivering complex healthcare, laboratory, education, and corporate moves across the UK. With extensive experience working in live clinical and research environments, Jenny has supported NHS Trusts and healthcare organisations on projects involving laboratories, archives, medical equipment, specialist departments, and high-value operational assets, where continuity, planning, and risk management are critical. Jenny is also a former area secretary of the British Association of Removers, reflecting her long-standing involvement in promoting professional standards across the sector. Separately, businesses led by Jenny have twice received the industry’s Commercial Mover of the Year award in recognition of excellence in operational delivery and customer service.
approaches that can respond to changing operational pressures. This demands close collaboration with clinical teams to understand dependencies, critical services, and operational constraints, ensuring that relocation activity supports rather than disrupts patient care. Despite this, relocation is still frequently treated as a late stage consideration. In reality, early integration into programme planning is essential. Aligning transition activity with construction and commissioning programmes allows estates teams to anticipate constraints, plan temporary arrangements, and reduce the risk of delays or disruption later in the process.
A parallel workstream A further challenge sits in how relocation activity is typically procured within major programmes. It is often treated as a subcontracted logistical service, brought in late, and driven primarily on cost. In practice, this can lead to a limited understanding of the operational and clinical sensitivities involved, with relocation activity managed as a discrete task rather than an integral part of programme delivery. Given that relocation sits directly within live clinical environments, often in close proximity to patients and frontline staff, this approach can introduce avoidable operational and clinical risk. It can also create barriers to implementing more integrated approaches, such as linking asset tracking into CAFM systems or wider estate management platforms, where early planning, data alignment, and stakeholder coordination are essential. There is a strong case for treating relocation as a parallel workstream, aligned to soft landings principles and working collaboratively with estates, clinicians, and contractors. When approached in this way, relocation becomes an enabling function, supporting smooth transition, improving asset visibility, and reducing pressure on clinical teams while contributing to overall programme performance. Relocation programmes also present a practical opportunity to support wider sustainability objectives. A reuse first approach, prioritising the redistribution of furniture and equipment within estates or through donation and resale, can significantly reduce waste and support circular economy principles. Where reuse is not viable, responsible recycling routes can further minimise environmental impact. Capturing the carbon impact of relocation activity also provides greater visibility of emissions associated with transition phases, supporting wider sustainability reporting and more informed decision making over time. There is also increasing recognition of the role relocation can play in delivering social value. By aligning operational activity with community needs – through the redistribution of surplus equipment, for example – estates programmes can extend their impact beyond the
48 Health Estate Journal August 2026
hospital estate in a tangible and meaningful way. Ultimately, successful delivery comes down to people as much as process. Relocation teams are often working alongside clinical staff and, in some cases, in close proximity to patients. This requires a calm, professional, and respectful approach, underpinned by clear communication and an understanding of the clinical environment. As NHS estates continue to evolve, the ability to safely and efficiently transition services will become increasingly important. The success of major programmes will depend not only on what is built but on how effectively services are moved and reestablished within new or reconfigured environments. In that context, relocation should not be seen as a secondary logistical task but as a core component of programme delivery, one that, when properly planned and integrated, can reduce risk, support clinical teams, and contribute to the overall success of healthcare transformation.
Case study: a live paediatric hospital environment The risks associated with poorly integrated transition activity are perhaps most visible in large, specialist hospital environments, where the complexity of services and the sensitivity of patient cohorts combine to create a particularly demanding operational context. This can be seen in the delivery of a series of relocation and decant programmes within a major London children’s hospital, undertaken over a number of years to support refurbishment works, new building integration, and ongoing service reconfiguration. In this instance, relocation did not take the form of a single, discrete move, but rather a sequence of interdependent transitions aligned to construction milestones and changing operational requirements. Clinical departments, ward areas, theatres, and a wide range of equipment and specialist items were moved over time, often within tightly defined windows and, on occasion, at short notice. As is often the case in healthcare settings, the complexity lay less in the physical movement itself and more in how that activity was integrated into a live, continuously operating clinical environment.
Maintaining clinical continuity Early engagement with estates teams, clinical staff and departmental leads proved critical in shaping how the programme was approached. Rather than applying a fixed logistical plan, relocation activity was structured around clinical priorities and operational constraints, allowing moves to be sequenced in a way that supported the continued delivery of care. Much of the work was therefore undertaken outside standard hours, where this reduced impact on patients, visitors and frontline teams. Even with this planning in place, flexibility remained essential, with the programme adapting in response to changing clinical demands and the realities of working within a live environment. The nature of a paediatric hospital also introduced additional considerations, not only in terms of infection control and operational sensitivity, but in the way that relocation teams needed to work within spaces that were, at all times, patient facing. Careful route planning, combined with clear communication and consistent on site briefings, helped ensure that all personnel understood both the physical constraints of the environment and the behaviours expected of them. In this context, delivery becomes as much about how work is carried out as it is about what is being moved. Maintaining clinical continuity remained the defining requirement throughout. Certain transitions were required
AdobeStock / Dika
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 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
