THERE were high hopes for Glasgow’s “super-hospital” – hopes that it might transform healthcare in a city that had been struggling for a long time with ageing hospitals built in the Victorian age. So why, less than four years after its opening, are we asking so many serious questions about how the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital is working? Why is a building that was once praised for its design now at the centre of a government inquiry?
The immediate spur for the inquiry is the case of the child who died after contracting the fungal infection cryptococcus, which is found in pigeon droppings. A likely source has already been found and control measures have been put in place. Health Secretary Jeane Freeman has also announced the government review. “It will look at everything from the design, the construction, the commissioning and the continuing maintenance,” she said.
The design is particularly important. Glaswegians have been asking themselves for a long time whether there were inherent faults with the building and the investigation must establish whether their fears are well-founded.
There are other serious questions to be asked. For example, how transparent and efficient is the system for monitoring the working of the hospital? The former health secretary Alex Neil told this newspaper there had been a major failure of governance at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde after it emerged board members were only briefed after the situation became public.
Of course, it is important to maintain perspective (cryptococcus infection is incredibly rare) but equally the Health Secretary should be careful to avoid appearing insensitive – perhaps answering yes to the question “is the infection control at the hospital good enough?” was unwise. In the end, the inquiry must establish if that is true. But its main focus should be a question that many Glaswegians have asked themselves over the last four years: is the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital fit for purpose?
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel