Standardising Healthcare Design: Key Lessons from the UK and Australia

Healthcare design is a multi-faceted challenge, where clinical effectiveness must meet long-term operational efficiency. Increasingly, standardisation is being recognised as a way to align these goals—offering a structured, scalable, and adaptable framework for designing healthcare environments. This blog explores the layered application of standardisation across UK and Australian healthcare projects, with particular emphasis on how MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing) systems can be integrated into broader design and delivery strategies.

Understanding Standardisation Across Levels

Standardisation can be applied at several levels—from macro-scale site planning down to individual components. In the UK context, Astrid Pernstich (Murphy Philipps Associates) discussed how opportunities for standardised design are different dependant on the level of application. Whilst at the site level true standardisation may be limited by existing buildings or other constraints, at the building and departmental level, she highlighted how repeatable layouts aligned to standards such as those used in the Procure22/23 Framework can support both clinical efficiency and construction economy.

An example cited was Finchley Memorial Hospital, where repeatable 16-square-metre room modules for the primary care areas at ground floor and standard sized single bedrooms at first floor created flexibility across clinical functions while enabling a consistent design language. This in turn allowed the MEP systems to be designed with standardised assumptions, reducing installation complexity and improving maintainability.

The Role of MEP Systems in Standardisation

MEP systems are central to the delivery and adaptability of healthcare buildings. Efficient standardisation of these systems not only contributes to immediate cost savings but also helps future-proof facilities. The design challenge lies in creating systems that are replicable yet adaptable to varied clinical and environmental conditions.

Astrid's presentation highlighted the value of designing risers and core service routes in a repeatable manner to allow for rapid deployment across similar schemes. At the same time, adaptability was flagged as essential—particularly where refurbishments or site constraints might limit what is possible.

Insights from Australia:

A Standardised Approach Drawing on recent project work in Australia, Oana Gavriliu (Hassell) shared insights from projects such as the Herston Quarter STARS building. Here, a standardised approach to both architecture and MEP was employed to accelerate timelines and improve quality control through prefabrication. However, the experience also revealed limitations. In highly complex clinical environments, some flexibility had to be maintained in MEP planning—particularly around ventilation and cooling capacities—demonstrating that rigid standardisation may not always suit evolving care models or multi-use facilities.

Oana also highlighted the benefits of open-source guidance like the AusHFG, which has been developed and used in Australia for the past 15 years. By making room layouts and component data publicly available, design consistency is improved, and alignment between stakeholders is accelerated.

Striking the Balance:

Standardisation vs Flexibility Across both contexts, the key takeaway was the importance of balance. Standardisation offers efficiency, but overly rigid approaches can compromise functionality in certain clinical scenarios.

The ability to design shell spaces or oversize plant and riser capacity for future needs was raised as one practical solution. This approach ensures buildings can scale or adapt over time without expensive retrofit work.

The Supplier’s Perspective

Mathew Hopwood (Mansfield Pollard) brought an industry supplier’s view to the discussion, reinforcing the importance of engaging with manufacturers and technical partners early in the process. From an MEP perspective, standardisation needs to be grounded in real-world practicality—ensuring systems are not only replicable but also operable and maintainable across multiple sites. He noted that standardised products, if well chosen, can help align procurement, reduce lead times, and simplify service requirements—without compromising quality or long-term performance.

Conclusions

Standardisation is not about forcing uniformity, but rather about creating a shared language that supports scalability, quality, and long-term value. Lessons from both the UK and Australia underline that the most successful approaches combine clear design intent with enough flexibility to adapt to clinical complexity and future change.

By applying standardisation thoughtfully—particularly in MEP systems—and engaging designers, suppliers, and end-users from the outset, healthcare projects can deliver more with less. Whether through modular layouts, repeatable components, or flexible infrastructure, the goal remains the same: to create environments that serve patients and staff better, now and in the years ahead.

Interested in joining the conversation? Join one of our upcoming events.