Medical physicist Dr Michael Bradnam has told the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry that he spent 15 years raising concerns about ventilation systems, electrical safety, and humidity control at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow without receiving formal responses.

Dr Bradnam, who worked for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for over 40 years and was involved in the QEUH project for roughly two decades, submitted three formal reports detailing his findings. The first, filed in 2020, addressed ventilation and temperature regulation in areas using anaesthetic gases. A second, in 2024, highlighted electrical safety risks in critical patient care zones, noting that no department within the health board was inspecting wiring and earth bonding for medical equipment. A third complaint in 2025 focused on recurring humidity control failures in imaging rooms at both the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Children.

Dr Bradnam stated that despite raising these issues for at least 15 years, no formal responses had been provided. He also said he did not know whether his recommendations were implemented or how far the reports were escalated within the health board's governance processes.

The QEUH Patient and Family Group said the new evidence has left families deeply disturbed, particularly because some of the issues should have been addressed more than a decade ago. Families of patients affected by infections at the hospital expressed shock upon learning that long-standing warnings had not been properly addressed.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde confirmed it is reviewing the evidence and has established a new working group that includes Dr Bradnam to assess his concerns. The health board emphasized that patient safety remains its highest priority and that actions will be taken based on recommendations from the group. The group is expected to present a report to the safety and public confidence oversight group on September 2.

Scotland's Patient Safety Commissioner Karen Titchener has described a "nothing to see here" culture within parts of NHS Scotland, suggesting some health boards prioritize reputation management over patient safety. She indicated that patients who make complaints are sometimes dismissed or viewed negatively by health boards, and called for cultural change originating from leadership.

Dr Iain Kennedy, chair of BMA Scotland, echoed these concerns, calling for a shift in organizational culture set by political leaders. Health Secretary Angela Constance stated the government maintains a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment, while Scottish Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie criticized the SNP's handling of NHS transparency.

The Scottish Hospitals Inquiry, launched in 2019, is examining errors made during the planning, design, and construction of the hospital campus following serious concerns about infections and the deaths of four patients. Separately, Scotland's independent public prosecution and death investigation authority is investigating seven deaths for potential links to conditions at the facility. A standard prosecution report has been submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding four of those cases.

Original Sources/Tags: dailyrecord.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, glasgowtimes.co.uk, glasgowlive.co.uk, glasgowlive.co.uk, heraldscotland.com, glasgowtimes.co.uk, (glasgow), (infections), (deaths), (families), (concerns), (searchability), (initiatives), (places), (indexing), (retrieval), (organizations), (works), (countries), (states), (cities), (regions), (landmarks), (institutions), (normalize), (pronouns), (articles)

Our past exchange, (0e8bbd579f10e0447645e1287be7506872272f768ea104203f213d64b19ac99d 4):

YES

(Update/use as neccessary)

The text uses soft words to hide who ignored the warnings. It says "he never received any official response" which hides that someone in charge chose to ignore him. This makes it sound like the system failed by accident instead of showing that people in power did nothing on purpose. The soft words help hide that bosses and leaders are the ones who let patients get hurt.

The text uses sad words to push feelings and make readers angry. It says families are "deeply upset" and "retraumatized" to make the pain feel very strong. These words help readers feel sad and mad about what happened. The strong feelings push people to blame the hospital and government without hearing the other side.

The text hides who was really in charge by using passive voice. It says "he does not know whether his reports were passed up through the proper channels" which hides that real people decided to ignore the reports. This makes it sound like the system is broken by accident instead of showing that workers and bosses chose to do nothing. The hiding helps protect the people with power.

The text only tells one side of the story. It says the hospital is "under a national inquiry" but does not say what the hospital or government says back. This makes readers think the hospital is guilty without hearing their side. The one-sided telling helps push the idea that the system is evil instead of fair.

The text uses the word "should have been fixed" to blame people without proof. It says "some of the problems should have been fixed more than a decade ago" which sounds like a fact but is just an opinion. This makes readers think someone did a crime on purpose. The guessing helps push anger at the hospital and government.

The text uses big numbers to make the problem feel huge. It says "one of the largest in the UK" to make the hospital sound very important and powerful. This helps readers think the problem is very bad because a big place did it. The big words help push the idea that the whole system is broken.

The text uses quotes from one group to make their view seem like the only truth. It says the "QEUH Patient and Family Group" feels retraumatized but does not say if other groups agree. This makes readers think everyone feels the same way. The one-group telling helps hide that other people might see things differently.

The text uses the word "formal reports" to make the warnings sound very serious. It says he "submitted three formal reports" which makes it sound like he did everything right. This helps readers think the hospital and government are very bad for ignoring them. The strong words help push the idea that the system is cruel.

The text carries several strong emotions that shape how readers understand the hospital safety failures. A deep sadness appears when families are described as "deeply upset" after learning new evidence about problems at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. This sadness is very powerful because it shows real pain from people who lost loved ones to infections. The purpose is to make readers feel the weight of their grief and to see this as more than just a bureaucratic issue. A fierce anger comes through in Dr. Michael Bradnam's account of spending 15 years raising concerns without receiving any official response. This anger is intense and serves to make readers blame hospital leaders for ignoring warnings that could have saved lives.

A heavy fear runs through the text in mentions of deaths and infections connected to the hospital's water and ventilation systems. This fear is strong and meant to make readers worried about patient safety in hospitals. The emotion helps guide readers to see these failures as dangerous and in need of immediate attention. A cautious hope appears in the fact that a public inquiry is now examining the evidence, suggesting that truth and accountability might finally be achieved. This hope is tempered by uncertainty, keeping readers aware that justice depends on proper investigation rather than quick fixes.

The writer uses emotional language to make the situation feel more urgent and personal. The repeated mention of specific timeframes, such as "15 years" and "more than a decade ago," amplifies the sense of prolonged neglect and makes the failure feel even more serious. The contrast between Dr. Bradnam's long service of over 40 years and the lack of response to his reports creates dramatic tension that highlights institutional failure. The personal story of the families being "retraumatized" makes the issue feel human and immediate, allowing readers to connect emotionally with the broader problem. These emotional tools work together to guide readers toward feeling sympathy for the affected families, anger toward the hospital administration, and motivation to demand better oversight and accountability in healthcare systems.

These emotions help guide the reader's reaction by creating strong sympathy for the families and anger toward those who ignored warnings. The sadness and fear make readers more likely to support the inquiry and demand answers, while the anger pushes them to hold hospital leaders accountable. The hope and uncertainty keep readers engaged and waiting for resolution. Together, these feelings help shape the message that serious failures occurred at the hospital and that real change is needed to protect patients from preventable harm.