1. Assessment summary
- Site
- Northgate Community Hospital — Outpatients and catering wing
- Client
- Illustrative healthcare organisation — fictional example
- Assessed area
- 12,800 m² gross internal
- Assessment type
- Professional — on-site, eight domains
- Methodology version
- CI-8 v1.0
- Indicators scored
- 33 of 37 (4 reported as not assessed)
- Data confidence
- Moderate — 71% observed, 18% verified, 11% estimated
- Assessor
- CleanabilityIQ demonstration assessment
Professional Cleanability Index
54
Constrained — the building imposes measurable operational friction that routine method cannot absorb. Weighted from 33 scored sub-indicators across eight domains.
2. Domain results
Each domain carries a stated weight. Unscored indicators are excluded rather than assumed.
Spatial Coherence and Movement Efficiency — SCME
weight 15% · 41/100 · Constrained
Recessed skirting details and restricted circulation create repeated detail work and backtracking.
Surface and Material Maintainability — SMM
weight 18% · 54/100 · Constrained
Porous grouted flooring in the wet servery increases soiling retention and restoration effort.
Maintenance and Servicing Accessibility — MSA
weight 14% · 62/100 · Functional
High-level glazing requires access equipment, while three plant voids have restricted routine access.
Workflow Integration and Operational Logic — WIOL
weight 12% · 66/100 · Functional
Cleaning stores are remote from the areas they serve, extending replenishment and response routes.
Hygiene Infrastructure Supportiveness — HIS
weight 13% · 37/100 · Adverse
Floor-mounted WC pans and limited local janitorial provision constrain hygiene work.
Waste Flow and Logistics Design — WFLD
weight 10% · 71/100 · Supportive
Waste routes are generally direct, with localised capacity pressure around catering operations.
Safety and Ergonomic Operational Conditions — SEOC
weight 10% · 49/100 · Constrained
Repeated low-level and overhead work exposes the cleaning team to avoidable physical strain.
Lifecycle Resilience and Adaptability — LRA
weight 8% · 59/100 · Functional
Most finishes remain serviceable, but wet-area flooring is likely to need accelerated replacement.
3. Critical findings
Anything scored 1 or 2 is reported on its own so a serious condition cannot be averaged away by good scores elsewhere.
Wet servery flooring
Grouted, porous surface in a food area
Scored 2 of 5 — observed
Consequence: Standing soil cannot be fully removed; rework each shift
Plant voids, levels 1–3
No practical cleaning access
Scored 1 of 5 — observed
Consequence: Areas excluded from routine; contamination reservoir
WC pan mounting
Floor-mounted across 14 cubicles
Scored 2 of 5 — observed
Consequence: Adds detail work; drives washroom labour above benchmark
4. Modelled cleanability cost
Baseline cost plus the avoidable premium the design creates. Movement drag was excluded — the data needed to model it was not available, and it is reported as excluded rather than estimated.
| Component | Modelled |
|---|---|
| Baseline operational cost | £286,400 / year |
| Labour drag premium | £31,500 / year |
| Rework premium | £12,900 / year |
| Access premium | £8,400 / year |
| Resource premium | £4,600 / year |
| Lifecycle premium | £16,200 / year |
| Cleanability Premium | £73,600 / year |
| Intervention cost / payback | £214,000 · 4.1 years |
Payback is calculated against £52,800 of recurring realizable annual benefit (£31,500 labour drag + £12,900 rework + £8,400 access). Resource and lifecycle premiums are excluded from the payback calculation.
5. Method, assumptions and limitations
- Scores are professional judgement against written 1–5 anchors, with an evidence type recorded on every answer.
- Domain weightings are professional judgement and are published in full on the methodology page.
- Cost figures are modelled from the client's own contract rate; no saving is claimed as verified.
- Four indicators could not be assessed on the visit and are reported as not assessed, not as satisfactory.
- This report does not evaluate a contractor's performance, price or compliance.
Illustrative example. Figures are constructed to demonstrate the deliverable structure.
Want this for your building?
Run the assessment yourself in the app, or have an assessor complete it on site.