Senior scientist says he has been raising concerns over scandal-hit Queen Elizabeth hospital for 15 YEARS

By PAUL DRURY AND HANNAH RODGER Published: 18:25, 15 August 2026 | Updated: 18:25, 15 August 2026 A senior medical scientist has revealed he has been raising concerns about Scotland’s scandal-hit flagship hospital for 15 years but is not satisfied they have been dealt with properly. In a statement to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry, Cambridge-educated Dr Michael Bradnam has detailed numerous issues he has flagged up to health bosses about the £1billion Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow. Among his evidence are claims that staff were ‘pressured’ to install £10million worth of scanning equipment ‘before the building was complete’. This, he said, carried a number of risks, including the potential for the equipment to be damaged during construction and possible deterioration if it was ‘unused for a prolonged period’. He also said that since the hospital opened in 2015 he has submitted three separate assessments to health bosses, flagging up concerns but had received no formal response or assurances that the issues had been addressed. The revelations come just a week after The Mail on Sunday revealed vital repairs to the QEUH are set to cost taxpayers an eye-watering £170million. The public inquiry was ordered in 2019 after a number of deaths and high levels of infection at the superhospital prompted concerns about patient safety. It has previously heard claims that political pressure was exerted to get the hospital ready on time for its planned opening by Queen Elizabeth in 2015, although First Minister John Swinney has denied this. The medic said he had flagged up issues about the £1 billion Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow to health bosses Staff at the hospital are said to have been pressured into installing a £10million scanner before the hospital was finished The Inquiry under Lord Brodie ceased hearing oral evidence earlier this year but has allowed Dr Bradnam to provide late testimony even though production of the final report into the scandal is now underway. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC), which is responsible for the QEUH, has been named as a suspect in a corporate homicide investigation into the deaths of four patients, including schoolgirl Milly Main and grandmother Gail Armstrong. Scottish Conservative health spokesman Miles Briggs MSP said: ‘This is utterly damning and yet another example of serious warnings being treated as if they were nothing. ‘If even a senior doctor didn’t know whether his warnings had been acted on, what hope did anyone else have of getting answers? ‘The SNP cannot keep hiding behind inquiries while the same unanswered questions pile up. Patients and families deserve accountability, not another cover-up.’ Dr Bradnam, an Honorary Associate Professor at the University of Glasgow, was part of the planning team at the the QEUH campus and has worked for the local health board since 1984. In his witness statement, he said: ‘By 2026, I had been raising concerns for at least fifteen years.’ He said that ‘although some had been partially addressed’, he had not seen evidence that his outstanding concerns had been completely resolved. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC), which is responsible for the QEUH, has been named as a suspect in a corporate homicide investigation into the deaths of four patients, including schoolgirl Milly Main, pictured  with mother Kimberly Darroch He said he officially raised with his superiors three major issues of concern, under the formal title of ‘SBARs’ which stand for ‘Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation.’ Dr Bradnam added: ‘Since the hospitals opened, I have submitted three SBARs through my management and the Health Board’s clinical governance arrangements concerning matters that I considered affected the safe operation of the new hospital facilities. ‘(These were) ventilation and temperature control in 2020, patient electrical safety in Group 2 medical locations in 2024, and environmental humidity control in 2025. ‘To date, I have received no formal response to those SBARs, nor any confirmation that my recommendations have been implemented or that the assurance gaps they identified have been addressed.  'I also do not know how far the SBARs were escalated within the Health Board’s governance processes or whether they were recorded on any corporate or departmental risk registers.’ The installation of a £10million Siemens MRI scanner long before the hospital was opened deeply concerned Dr Bradnam. Referring to an email exchange he provided from 2014, he said it provided evidence ‘that the Diagnostics Directorate was being pressured to install high-value imaging equipment before the building was complete’. Citing the fact that sensitive imaging equipment could be damaged by other construction work taking place, he said one of the worst-case scenarios was an MRI Scanner ‘quench’, where a sudden, dramatic loss of superconductivity could lead to the release of boiling liquid helium. He went on: ‘In my experience, this carried a number of technical and operational risks, including deterioration of equipment that remained installed but unused for an extended period, the risk of an MRI scanner quench, and an increased risk of damage while construction activities were still ongoing.’ Dr Bradnam said he had not previously come forward with his testimony due to a variety of ‘personal and professional’ issues, including ill health and family bereavement. Earlier this year, he felt able to present them to the Inquiry, albeit belatedly. He said: ‘I raised my concerns through the appropriate management and governance channels within NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and gave the organisation repeated opportunities to consider and address them. ‘When those concerns remained unresolved, I sought advice from Solicitors at the Central Legal Office. In April 2026, Central Legal Office advised me that I could contact the Inquiry directly as an individual witness, and I did so.’ NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said it had ‘only recently been made aware’ of Dr Bradnam’s evidence and needed time to review it in full. It also confirmed he had contacted the health board ‘a few months ago in relation to the issues raised’ and that it ‘moved quickly’ to establish a working group, which Dr Bradnam will be part of, to review and better understand his concerns. The group’s work is ‘currently underway’ with a full recommendation expected in due course.