IT is a central pillar of a strategy created to deal with Glasgow's health needs for decades to come, designed to provide care from cradle to grave for hundreds of thousands of people.
The £842 million South Glasgow University Hospital, renamed the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital this month, is the main hub of one of the biggest medical campuses in Europe and boasts features at the cutting edge of 21st Century medicine.
Yet since opening its doors in April the hospital has been dogged by problems dismissed as teething troubles by some, or signs of institutional failures by others.
Waiting times targets have been missed, leading to the Scottish Government dispatching troubleshooters to oversee improvements,while both unions and nursing leaders have voiced concerns over the mounting issues.
Patients have also hit outwith claims of "chaos" in the Accident and Emergency department during one busy weekend in May, with reports of people being left waiting for hours on trolleys in corridors.
Now cancer sufferers have been moved back to the Beatson Oncology Unit after problems with air quality temporarily rendered the department unfit for purpose a month after it opened its doors.
Dreamed up more than a decade ago when Labour were in power at Holyrood, and steered through to completion by the SNP, the EUH merges three old hospitals into one, combining services from the Southern General, the Victoria Infirmary and the Western Infirmary into the new building.
It also encompasses a new children's hospital to replace the Royal Hospital for Sick Children at Yorkhill, with separate entrances and wards for young ones in the main building although, services are now shared across the adult and children's hospital, whereas before Yorkhill had its own dedicated departments.
The transfer of services has been described as the largest ever hospital migration in the UK, but it is clear that not everything has gone smoothly.
On a bank holiday weekend in May, one woman said that the hospital was like "a war zone...after a major disaster" and that her terminally-ill husband had to wait eight hours to be admitted.
Annette Leishman said her husband, who has pneumonia, was referred by their GP to the immediate assessment unit and that when they arrived, and the reception area was "six deep" in people trying to be seen.
"The corridors were full of people on trolleys with ambulance men waiting to get them booked in, old people left in corridors and no-one acknowledging anyone because they did not know where they were going," she said.
Waiting have struggled to reach targets. In the week ending ending June 7, with 78.3 per cent of people treated in A&E inside four hours, down from 83.2 per cent the previous week and the worst of any hospital in Scotland.
This is also far lower than the government's goal of treating 95 per cent of people in four hours, with 378 cases where people waited more than four hours at the QEUH to be admitted, transferred or discharged.
Meanwhile, 48 patients had to wait more than eight hours and eight people were there for longer than 12 hours.
This is despite the hospital having 1109 beds, with each ward consisting of 28 single bedrooms with ensuite facilities and observation windows that turn opaque at the twist of a handle.
Some parents have been less than impressed with the standard of care. One complained that it now takes longer to get test results, medicines from the pharmacy and blood products sent up to her son, who has blood cancer.
Another said that the quality of food on offer was "distressing" and often cold, unhealthy and unappetising.
More than 2,800 people have backed petition urging health chiefs to remove the royal title from the hospital.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article