New Healthcare Facilities Feasibility Study: Why was Option B selected?

When the two options were assessed in the Evaluation Workshops, as discussed in our previous blog post, Option B was clearly the preferred option of all the evaluation panels.

Why was this the case?

1. Option B scored higher in all evaluation questions than Option A, and significantly higher in the evaluation by clinicians, who rated Option B ‘Very Good’, while Option A was only ‘Adequate’.  
2. The construction plan for Option B will provide an operational acute hospital by 2028, earlier than Option A by four years.
3. It uses both sites to their best potential, optimising the use of Modern Methods of Construction and minimising the delays in construction due to site size and accessibility.
4. It minimises the impact of construction vibration and noise on the sickest patients, which could be more significant in Option A.
5. It provides the opportunity for better and more efficient clinical adjacencies (where clinical teams are located) due to the larger size of the site.
6. Outpatient and day case facilities will remain in town with greatest ease of pedestrian access, public transport, and parking, including access to the Urgent Treatment Centre.
7. It will provide peaceful treatment and recovery space for inpatients at Overdale, with increased privacy compared to a town location.
8. It provides increased capacity for future expansion on both sites, compared to Option A.

In the next of our blog posts, we explore the work being done to develop a Strategic Outline Case, and why the multi-site healthcare proposal is better than a single site solution.