SPECIALIST ARCHITECTURE ‘‘
It is probably fair to say that in both cases the ‘pros’ very much outweigh the ‘cons’, and Sue Ryder is delighted with its completed buildings in both Lancashire and Aberdeen
full understanding of the success of each part of the project, and how the service to their clients can be improved moving forward. It is fair to say, following extensive dialogue and feedback, that Sue Ryder’s experience of both projects is very different, and perhaps falls into two main categories: n Dee View Court involved the reworking of an existing neurological care centre, whereas the Lancashire Care Centre was a new-build, hence avoiding any significant impact upon Sue Ryder’s clients. In Aberdeen the residents were in the building while work was carried out on other parts of the site.
n In Lancashire the contractor was on board at an early stage, which helped Sue Ryder have a more holistic understanding of what its ‘end-product’ would be. This understanding included issues relating to budget, where the costing exercise was carried out by the contractor rather than a quantity surveyor, meaning that estimates were based on quotations from suppliers, rather than guidance from a consultant.
Historically, architecture was often measured in terms of ‘Commodity, Firmness, and Delight’, which were established by Vitruvius in the dim and very distant past, but in more recent years these measures have been replaced by ‘Time, Cost, and Quality’. It is an interesting exercise to compare how Dee View Court and Lancashire measure up against these metrics to help us to understand the different implications of each scenario. The table on pages 28-29 list the key pros and cons of each approach, and hopefully goes some way to explaining the different challenges faced by Sue Ryder in each case.
‘Pros’ outweighed the ‘cons’ It is probably fair to say that in both cases the ‘pros’ very much outweigh the ‘cons’, and Sue Ryder is delighted with its completed buildings in both Lancashire and Aberdeen. That said, however, it is equally fair to say that the experience of Sue Ryder in Aberdeen came with considerably more pain – the primary
32 Health Estate Journal October 2020
reason for this was the challenge of carrying out construction work side by side with an existing and operational neurological care centre.
As well as the inevitable disruption of having building work on your doorstep, a secondary consideration was the fact that Sue Ryder was in daily contact with the reality of how distracting and time- consuming construction work can be. Staff inevitably became involved in liaising with the contractor when they were planning the works in order to avoid any operational issues and ensure patient safety. This added responsibility for staff – whose primary role is to provide care – was sometimes daunting, and this experience may, to an extent, detract from how the completed building is perceived. The flip side of this, of course, is that if an existing building can be extended, there is the potential to significantly reduce the overall capital expenditure that is required. Sue Ryder is confident that its neurological care centres in Lancashire and Aberdeen not only meet the organisation’s current requirements, but are also flexible enough to allow the charity to provide high quality care for the foreseeable future. The changes in care requirements that Sue Ryder has witnessed over the last couple of decades seem set to continue over the coming years; it would be foolhardy to think that the recent experience of COVID-19 would not impact upon how care is provided within these settings.
Managing current challenges Undoubtedly the move from shared bedrooms at Cuerden Hall to the new single bedrooms in Lancashire has been key to helping Sue Ryder successfully manage the current challenges. As well as that, however, the infrastructure systems that Sue Ryder has invested in, as part of both projects, have allowed it to avail itself of ‘virtual’ GP wards, and technology which allows it to keep in touch with other professionals. These systems allow them to take, for example, a speech and language therapist to the client by video link to carry out a consultation. Seemingly simple steps, such as these, significantly reduce the need to bring people into the buildings, and allow Sue Ryder to minimise any infection risks. Flexibly functional space that meets the physical and emotional needs of its clients and staff seems to be the standard that Sue Ryder, and many other healthcare providers, require for the foreseeable future. JDDK Architects’ aspiration is that the practice can bring its shared experience of two very different design approaches to future healthcare schemes, helping clients to navigate their way through the construction process to achieve uplifting, cost-effective buildings that respond positively to their needs, and exceed their expectations.
Mura Mullan
Mura Mullan BA Hons, BArch Hons, RIBA – Director, architect, has been an architect at JDDK Architects since 1999, and has been a Director of the practice since 2009. She has considerable expertise in the healthcare sector, and acts in both a design capacity, and as a consultant advisor to other organisations. In addition to involvement with Rutherford Estates, her project experience includes designing new build hospices for Marie Curie and Sue Ryder, as well as several independent hospices.
She is also an RIBA-accredited Client Design Adviser, and led JDDK Architects’ involvement in the King’s Fund’s ‘Enhancing the Healing Environment’ pilot project, which aimed to improve the quality of healthcare environments. Mura Mullan was also design consultant to the Irish Hospice Foundation, contributing directly to its ‘Design and Dignity Guidelines’.
She leads JDDK Architects’ major healthcare design research project with Northumbria University, which is focused on JDDK’s 30 years of ‘Designing with Care’. The project has been exhibited at a number of UK conferences, and is being featured in publications by the Royal Institute of British Architects and in the British Medical Journal. She is also a panel member for the North East Design Review Service, and a Professional Examiner at Newcastle University.
hej
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
