search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
SURFACING MATERIALS


greatly reduce the risk of bacterial proliferation. As well as offering higher impact and artificial light resistance than veneers, they do not require varnishing during installation, which can impede access during the process and ensuing drying time.


Risk of staff being obstructed This may become an increasing concern during retrofitting works, where staff may be obstructed while carrying out their duties. Yet, most of all, by only meeting ‘hygienic’ standards, door veneers do not possess any additional properties that could help mitigate infection risks within the healthcare estate. By contrast, antibacterial surfaces used on doors passively limit bacterial proliferation, allowing these key components to assist in safeguarding patient wellbeing and outcomes. Alongside antibacterial properties, light reflectance values (LRVs) are another key factor to consider when specifying surfaces for healthcare estates. Approved Document M of the Building Regulations requires that building elements – including doors, handles, and walls, have a minimum LRV contrast of 30 points to improve the ability of visually impaired people to move around. In buildings such as hospitals, where vulnerable people will undoubtedly be present, the importance of this cannot be overstated. Taking this into account, healthcare estate decision-


makers should make sure that any surface they select achieves good daylight values. Doing so is also useful for creating contrasting layouts to assist those with visual impairments navigate their environment. To best source these components, specifiers need to further evaluate potential surface suppliers and the ranges they offer. By discerning whether they can provide a range of decorative combinations in a variety of materials that retain antibacterial properties – including MFC, HPL, and compact laminate – specifiers are better able to create a safe and welcoming environment.


Looking forward


In conclusion, balancing form and function in healthcare furnishings is crucial for efficiency, cleanability, antimicrobial protection, and durability. Engineered


surfaces such as MFC, HPL, and compact laminate, have a part to play in safeguarding patient outcomes, providing all-important infection control alongside aesthetic appeal. Yet specifiers must go beyond basic hygiene standards, including ensuring that surfaces are hard-wearing, easy-to-clean, and resistant to intensive cleaning procedures.


Antibacterial surfaces, with integrated silver ion


protection, offer significant benefits that go beyond these standard features. Healthcare decision-makers should therefore identify suppliers that are familiar with the technology and other considerations and pressures within the healthcare estate’s everyday operations. Leveraging supplier expertise and adhering to legislation ensures safe, accessible, and effective healthcare environments. This manufacturer guidance may be instrumental in mitigating against bacterial proliferation across the healthcare estate. As such, healthcare architects or specifiers keen to explore the selection process more formally should seek out RIBA-accredited CPDs on the topic to raise awareness of the role that panel and surface technologies can play in patient outcomes.


Blanc Megève high- pressure laminate and compact HPL in a clinical setting at Clinique des Grangettes in Switzerland.


May 2025 Health Estate Journal 55


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  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84