Site Selection for Radiology Centres

Most diagnostic centre projects do not fail because of the equipment. They fail because the site could not actually support it — and that was discovered after the lease was signed. Site selection is where that risk gets caught, while it is still cheap.

What we check before you sign

  • Room and clearance requirements — candidate premises screened against the equipment minimum room dimensions, slab-to-slab height and service clearances
  • The delivery route — gate, driveway, entrance, corridors, turning radii, lift dimensions and lift capacity, door openings, all the way to the final gantry position
  • Structural capacity for the static load in position and the transit load along that route
  • Power and earthing adequacy — incoming supply, transformer capacity, and whether a compliant dedicated earth can be achieved on the site at all
  • Radiation safety adjacency — what occupies the spaces above, below and beside the proposed room, since that drives shielding cost and can complicate AERB approval
  • Expansion room — whether a second modality can be added later without rebuilding

A written go/no-go report, per site

Each candidate site gets a written feasibility report rather than a verbal opinion: what the site supports as-is, what would need remediation, and what that remediation would cost. That turns a leasing decision into a comparison between known quantities instead of a guess.

Common site failures we catch early

  • Corridors, lifts and door openings too small for the equipment — the failure that surfaces on delivery day if nobody checked
  • Slabs that cannot take a magnet or gantry without strengthening
  • Incoming supply inadequate for the modality, with no viable upgrade path
  • Adjacency problems that make shielding disproportionately expensive
  • No workable quench vent route for an MRI, which can rule out a floor entirely
  • Nowhere serviceable to site a chiller platform

Site and equipment are one decision

Evaluating premises without a specific equipment model in mind risks a mismatch found later, because the equipment dimensions and loads are what define whether a site works. We assess candidate sites and candidate systems against each other, so the two decisions are made together. See how this fits the wider turnkey scope.

The cost asymmetry is the whole argument. A feasibility study costs a fraction of a month's rent. Discovering after signing that the magnet cannot reach the room costs the lease, the delay, and sometimes the equipment deposit.

Site selection, answered.

Should site selection happen before or after choosing the equipment?
Ideally in parallel. The equipment dimensions and loads determine what a site must support, so evaluating sites without a specific model in mind risks a mismatch discovered later — and choosing equipment without a site in mind risks the same thing from the other direction.
What does a feasibility report actually cover?
Structural capacity, delivery access, power and earthing adequacy, and regulatory adjacency — each assessed against your specific equipment and modality, with a clear go/no-go recommendation and the cost of any remediation needed.
Can you assess a site we have already leased?
Yes, and it is worth doing before construction rather than during. The options narrow once the lease is signed, but knowing the constraints early still saves significant cost and delay.
How many sites can you assess?
As many as you are seriously considering. Comparing three candidates on the same criteria is usually what makes the right choice obvious.

Planning a radiology project?

Tell us about your site, equipment and project stage.

Start a Conversation →
WhatsApp