GIDS rated ‘inadequate’ by CQC

There are so many red flags. From Hannah's thread:

The report highlights how vulnerable some patients were, including: “young people who had made suicide attempts, young people who were vulnerable to sexual exploitation and young people who had a history of inappropriate or high-risk sexual behaviour.”

Hannah Barnes’ thread is great for pulling out the details. I also find the idea of someone standing over Ben Hunte’s shoulder while he writes amusing. I think it’s interesting that the detail has come from the Newsnight team and Ben has basically written an intro. I suppose they have to find him something to do.

Awaits impatiently for Newnignt tonight and Don Kimono’s Twitter update.

That is an atrocious report and absolutely not just about waiting times. I found it interesting that the dispassionate outsiders (CQC) found the service to be generally terrible but those in the bubble (children/parents) thought it was amazing.

Kind of echoes the whole give me what I want and everyone who highlights concerns is a hateful transphobe.

Bloody hell the record keeping bit is absolutely atrocious. I used to be an advice worker with a charity & it was drummed into that you write everything down! What the hell were they thinking? And yes I’m sure they were busy but these are clinical records recording clinical decisions! How can they not have recorded this stuff?

Absolutely. Always, always, children's safeguarding is paramount.

Hannah Barnes has also done a very good lengthy thread on Twitter:

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1351793414812086274?s=21

Includes:

“ GIDS carried out audits of compliance with their procedure for consent and capacity in March and September 2020. The March audit reviewed 10 records of young people referred for hormone blockers: “only three contained a completed consent form and checklist for referral.

CQC: “we found no evidence that staff had completed an assessment after the documentation was found to be missing...this meant that staff had still not assessed the capacity and competency of young people receiving treatment, despite being aware that they had not done so.”

Suddenly after the recent Dec 2020 court ruling its inadequacies, long pointed out on MN to much vicious backlash, have been formally recognised

Ironically we all want the same thing don't we. Good, evidence based health care complete with records, research etc so much time spent fighting against us which could be used to actually work with us to fight the real problems.

Does this call into question the previous inspection report at all? On the CQC website it (the previous report) is dated 2018, overall 'Good', and 'effectiveness' was 'Outstanding'.

Suddenly after the recent Dec 2020 court ruling its inadequacies, long pointed out on MN to much vicious backlash, have been formally recognised.

Funny, that.

It didn’t fail due to waiting times

It is so frustrating that no one seems to ever make the connection between increased demand now that gender non conformity /gender diverse has been added to the mix and covers near enough any normal child and the waiting times.

You cant on one hand fight for any thing besides strict conformity to stereotypes to be included them act surprised when kids who wouldn't normally be there show up at the door.

But then I guess we shouldn't be surprised when the right to change sex markwrs on medical records was also granted.

Its like constant stream of self sabotage. Why keep creating the situations you then have to fight against?

Does anyone remember all those Mumsnet webchats with senior politicians - from various political parties - who absolutely refused to engaged in questions about this ineadequate NHS service?

It didn’t fail due to waiting times.

Sounds like my home learning experience with DS yesterday Cara

Yes, I read the BBC article imagining Ben sitting there typing with gritted teeth about failures to check on informed consent while someone from the BBC editorial team stood by his shoulder saying "no Ben you can't just write about long waiting lists, you have to mention all of the findings."

The BBC article is better. This is great news. I just feel so sorry for all those parents and children that have already received treatment. I wonder if they will now sue.

It interesting that the bbc seem to be able to get certain messages out under a specific programme's heading. I wonder how that works.

Yes the news night analysis is interesting.

We also have to hold on to the fact that the bbc has removed mermaids from its site too.

The BBC article is interesting in that it includes reporting by Ben Hunte and analysis by the Newsnight team. It feels like there has been a shift in how they are reporting on the issue, particularly after that awful piece from BH recently that had to be amended.

I await our public apology .....

Why do they always write these stories as if its some kind of surprise they never knew about.

What have we been discussing for/emailing mps about/being deleted for this whole bloody time...

Anything from the times?

PlantMam the Guardian article mentions the ruling in the Keira Bell case:

"the report found that the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment was not consistently recorded before January 2020. The change was a result of the high court ruling in the Keira Bell case, which found that that children considering gender reassignment were unlikely to be able to give informed consent."

Of course, the Grauniad could have muddled things up in their reporting.

These CQC comments are damning and would merit referral of the relevant practitioners to the HCPC, querying their fitness to practice:

"The report also stated that staff did not develop holistic care plans for young people, nor did they fully record the reasons for their clinical decisions in case notes.

“There were significant variations in the clinical approach of professionals in the team and it was not possible to clearly understand from the records why these decisions had been made,” the report says."

This in what is supposedly a "national centre of excellence". It does not get much worse without the CQC finding evidence of harm to patients. That is part of the problem with poor record keeping: there could be harm but it is impossible to know. What is known is that harms are more likely if records do not demonstrate a basic level of care and professionalism.

The fact that everyone was happy when they were eventually seen and, or because, GIDS gave them what they were asking for does not carry much weight if there are no records of clinical decision-making and holistic therapy plans. GIDS is not funded to be an NHS drugs-on-demand service.

The NHS Commissioners on behalf of NHS England set the service specification and are supposed to be monitoring performance and standards. They have been "captured" but, thank heavens, it seems that the CQC remains objective and independent.

About bloody time.