GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

YG - there’s nothing in action plan that sidesteps or disregards your role. Do you agree?

SA - yes…

YG - you didn’t have any concerns that referrals were going to dr Senior and then dr McKenna…

SA - obv there are conversations that take place within services that s/g leads are not going to sighted about, but where s/g issues are brought to the safeguarding team we agreed it wld be recorded in the safeguarding inbox. And they were not.

(Explains this wasn’t Mr R’s responsibility, but rather the person he was having conversation with)

YG - had you seen that action plan prior to court bundle?

SA - yes
SA confirms there’s nothing controversial in it, needs to be redefined over time, but I took part in action 14

YG - surprised you didn’t mention action plan in your statement. You pick up one word in the whole report (p1507) and decide that’s about you. It’s a rather self important observation on your part.

SA - what I wanted to point out in a witness statement that has a v specific focus was that dr Sinha seems to make a point himself as to whether safeguarding team itself was being respectful

YG - you disrespect all the work that has gone into this report and interpret it as being about you

SA - No.

This is so hostile and confrontational. Instead of denying or disproving Sonia's claims, it seemed the defense is to try to pick apart the nuance of every interaction

SA: I want the court to know that I was never given the opportunity to review the transcript… he was ‘very cool’ in his treatment…But I very strongly felt he did not want to hear about the very serious concerns clinicians had brought to me

SA - it was not a review about me, it was a review about the service. And the service includes the people who work for the service

YG - the purpose of the review and it was designed to capture the views of people in the service.

YG - and he interviewed 31 people… and at the end he said is there anything else you want to tell me?

SA - yes

YG - and confidentiality was promised and that was to garner open views… the report is also accompanied by an action plan…

SA -yes

YG - I’m looking at C and one of the actions is to develop an SOP for GIDS and you worked on that with PC and GR didn’t you?

SA - yes

YG - let's go to your meeting re: GIDS review... you produced a document...

SA - it's not simply as an aid memoir, but as a document to submit as part of the review...

YG - in the interview you had, i'm going to suggest he puts a similar line of questions that he puts to everyone else... you suggest that's he's interrogating you or ill-mannered...

SA - I was less upset and more curious as to why he wasn’t aware that as a safeguarding lead I would collect quarterly data

YG - he makes a perfectly reasonable request - why do we need this information from GIDS and who has requested it?

SA - as far as I was concerned… I responded to my line manager - unfortunately he may not have seen my email, but I was really concerned that his response was cancel the meeting with GIDS. But this was 2018. My statement is written in 2021 & by then I had formulated a dif view

YG - it was nothing more sinister than seeking clarification over a data request

SA - I did the very best I could. My line manager asked me for context and i provided it… just to make sure I wasn’t wrong footing myself I sought to clarify with him….

SA - It seems to me the line of questioning is basically whatever I did, I was wrong… you’re suggesting suspicion, when in fact I was cautious…
I responded to dr Sinha in a timely way providing him with the context he sought.

YG says SH advises that GIDS is under a sig burden at the time, gathering data for NHSE. You don’t take account of this

SA - I think this is a misunderstanding the emails. I acknowledge they were compromised in providing the data because they were providing data to another body

YG - I’m going to suggest that you’re suspicious about GIDS not providing information you think needs to be provided without accepting any difficulties at all. This is all part of your belief that.. (inaudible)

SA - if you read what i say I say I didn’t know this and I’ll ask the patient safety officer so I don’t think your portrayal of me is accurate
YG - we’ll see

YG references email from Dr Sinha asking to explain the data request you had made… you take that’s a some kind of extremely poor treatment of you. Why are you upset by Dr S asking you to be managed by him?

YG - would you agree it was not an easy relationship? He will say that you were not used to rather closer management in his style?

SA - I don’t agree. I had monthly supervision with Dr Senior and wld see at least once or twice depending on number and complexity of issues in trust re: safeguarding.

YG - fact is when dr Sinha was your manager you operated without close consultation with him: in oct 2018 you’d asked GR for safeguarding data.

S- - every quarter I have to collect safeguarding data -every single service where child is primary patient has exactly the same request. So rather than ask patient safety officer to get the data I was encouraging GR to undertake these audits himself, following our talks in Aug
… and these are the kind of requests I make to every single service.

YG - I can’t see you providing that level of detailed explanation other than in an email to sally Hodges

SA - GR would know that every quarter I look at this data. If he wasn’t aware, I’d be surprised but we could have moved on from that.

YG - it’s only when SH challenges it that you provide the data SA - I wrote directly to Garry saying this is what we need, referencing our conversations in august

(P472 475, par 76 SA) YG is discussing Tavistock electronic notes system, Care Notes. What more did you do to facilitate changes to better document in GIDS staff?

SA - the patient safety officer was to help GIDS with this administrative task…
But as already pointed out earlier, Dr Hodges requested that I step away until October to allow these changes to be embedded… I think she says she expects Mr R to come back with a plan

YG - were you aware that for some time GIDS had been missed off an all-trust email circulation list re: updates to care notes? SA - yes. I believe it was a matter that the patient safety officer uncovered
YG - the role you’ve got now, you say, is ltd, while GR and SH take other matters forward SA - I basically put myself on hold, at the advice of SH, until October.

YG - in august 2018 there’s a change of leadership. Dr Dinesh Sinha is appointed and he becomes your line manager? SA - yes, he does YG - he has a different style toner Senior and from outside the trust?
SA - yes he was

YG says he hit the ground running. CQC inspection, Bell report submitted to governors and the review that followed afterwards. Were you familiar with the reason that the reason why Dr Sinha was given that job was that he was a new person and did not have a side whatsoever?

SA - I did not know that

YG - re: your relationship with him, would you accept it wasn’t surprising that you did not have the engagement you perhaps would have liked to have in a less busy time?

SA - I wld have preferred to have had more contact albeit from what you’re saying he had to hit ground running

YG now on July 2018 - proposed meeting with Dr Bell, Polly Carmichael and SA. YG suggests that PC felt blind-sided

YG - what i'm concerned about is that you don't appear to respond to dr hodges in a collegiate way and instead you respond to dr bell to critique the email communication... i wonder why you thought that the course to take rather than lending support to dr hodges?

YG - But GR was aware of the case so looks like you're undermining him.

It appears as if NHS Tavistock GIDS is applying relationship counselling principles above the requirement that senior staff discharge their reponsibilities to care for the very vulnerable children who are patients.

The judge should stop this, it's wasting time.

I mean if someone is contacting the safeguarding lead at the Tavistock that they feel the GIDS safeguarding are not acting appropriately - it's totally within the remit of the Tavistock lead to enquire into that case. To see it as 'undermining' fails safeguarding.

I'm aghast that this is the Tavistock's defence - to pretend they don't understand safeguarding?

SA - it's not that anyone is disregarding the gids service, the protocol would always be that the named professional (i.e SA) wld be contacted first, irrespective if GIDS had its own s/g lead
YG - But GR was aware of the case so looks like you're undermining him.

I find it very difficult to comprehend that an NHS Trust would instruct its legal team to prioritise niceities over child protection principles. It raises a additional questions about the capabilities of Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust management.

Uh oh cross posting. Seeing double!

SA - it's not that anyone is disregarding the gids service, the protocol would always be that the named professional (i.e SA) wld be contacted first, irrespective if GIDS had its own s/g lead
YG - But GR was aware of the case so looks like you're undermining him.

SA - i'm not undermining him. (SA goes into some extra detail)

Lunch.

Sorry InvisibleDragon you beat me to it!

Hannah Barnes tweeting
YG again suggests that SA was not supportive of gids in helping to overcome the issue of the service not recording s/g issues in care notes. SA again disagrees and says she was supportive

SA - i responded to that and we made a plan. and when i came off the call i alerted mr richardson. i also looked at care notes record to be informed.

In essence the concern was why did the trust make a safeguarding referral to CAMHS service rather than local authority who have statutory duty to address that. Without further info i couldn't address that, so i alerted GR and looked at case record

YG again suggests that SA was not supportive of gids in helping to overcome the issue of the service not recording s/g issues in care notes. SA again disagrees and says she was supportive

Discussion of case where designated nurse from Cambridgeshire calls SA. She says gids view of this is that she should have referred to GR, but says NHS protocol dictates that they wld directly contact the named professional - and that is exactly what happened...

SA - i responded to that and we made a plan. and when i came off the call i alerted mr richardson. i also looked at care notes record to be informed.
In essence the concern was why did the trust make a safeguarding referral to CAMHS service rather than local authority who have statutory duty to address that. Without further info i couldn't address that, so i alerted GR and looked at case record

SA - it's not that anyone is disregarding the gids service, the protocol would always be that the named professional (i.e SA) wld be contacted first, irrespective if GIDS had its own s/g lead

YG - But GR was aware of the case so looks like you're undermining him.

SA - i'm not undermining him. (SA goes into some extra detail)
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
3m
LUNCH

YG again suggests that SA was not supportive of gids in helping to overcome the issue of the service not recording s/g issues in care notes. SA again disagrees and says she was supportive

Discussion of case where designated nurse from Cambridgeshire calls SA. She says gids view of this is that she should have referred to GR, but says NHS protocol dictates that they wld directly contact the named professional - and that is exactly what happened...

SA - i responded to that and we made a plan. and when i came off the call i alerted mr richardson. i also looked at care notes record to be informed.

In essence the concern was why did the trust make a safeguarding referral to CAMHS service rather than local authority who have statutory duty to address that. Without further info i couldn't address that, so i alerted GR and looked at case record

SA - it's not that anyone is disregarding the gids service, the protocol would always be that the named professional (i.e SA) wld be contacted first, irrespective if GIDS had its own s/g lead
YG - But GR was aware of the case so looks like you're undermining him.

SA - i'm not undermining him. (SA goes into some extra detail)

Lunch break!!

Quite a lot of the questioning is trying to show how PC was 'blindsided' by sa's actions, and sa was a meany for not congratulating senior people for doing their job. There is an expectation that everyone should be softly softly and kind, even if they are raising really important things and trying to get systems set up that will protect patients. There doesn't seem to be any denial that the things were really important. They want her retrospectively to have taken the apologetic tone that lots of women end up taking in meetings - 'that's such a good point but I don't mean to be a pain but maybe we should think about it in this different way and consider this other thing if you don't mind sorry'. (I'm exaggerating but they don't like her being direct and not thinking enough about senior people's feelings).