GIDS rated ‘inadequate’ by CQC

I notice he led with the number of children waiting and wait times.

This is not the reason it's failed!

Sorry, it's upthread.

NHS child gender clinic rated 'inadequate' by inspectors www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55723250

Absolutely, @TomatoesAreFruit.

The detailed report will be very illuminating re the further information contained within, especially with the GIDS appeal forthcoming.

This is what Ben Hunte said in BBC article:
"After reviewing 35 care records, the CQC found there was "no clearly defined assessment process" and "many records did not demonstrate good practice".

The records also appeared to be "insufficient" in considering the needs of young people with autism spectrum disorders.

In a sample of 22 records, the CQC found more than half mentioned autistic spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but "records did not demonstrate consideration of the relationship between autistic spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-55723250

On the last point regarding ASD/ADHD isn't that what women have been raising concerns about for years, and have been continually shut down or called transphobic.

Ben Hunte has written a similar piece for the BBC.

What I want to know - and what the Guardian and the BBC journos are being coy about - is what exactly does the CQC mean by saying the management of the waiting lists is inadequate?

The CQC surely isn't encouraging the speeding up of unnecessary surgical and irreversible medical interventions in children? I do wonder if the full report wants to see better pathways to mental health therapies.

How convenient we don't yet know.

Citation for the post above: Keira joined the application for JR on January 22nd 2020:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.economist.com/britain/2020/02/01/a-pushback-against-trans-activism-in-britain

It was initially filed by Sue Evans and Mrs A in
October 2019:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/therapist-raised-alert-at-troubling-practices-at-tavistock-clinic-nfhsbb76n

Permission was granted at the end of Feb 2020

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/01/families-divided-tavistock-nhs-gender-clinic-judicial-review-goes-ahead

The case began in court on October 7th 2020 and judges decision was published on December 1st.

I think it's a bit shit that the bloody Guardian et. al. get a preview of the report before the public, and are therefore able to woke-spin it without challenge.

Looking forward to a proper breakdown of the full report on here.

Have they got the year wrong or are they talking about something else that happened a year ago?

The date is right. Mrs A and Sue Evans filed their request for the judicial review at the end of 2019, Keira joined as lead claimant in January 2020, iirc, which I think is when the court officially agreed to
hear the judicial review.

GIDS then started a formal process for obtaining consent, presumably because Keira Bell made them shit their collective britches.

No, I've checked a couple of times. May not be posted until tomorrow am but release sent out to media in advance.

The inspection report doesn't seem to be up on the CQC website yet.

I can't find it, but would also like to read if anyone has a link.

I'd rather read the report than the usual weird Guardian spin mash-up.

I'll have a search for it - I assume it's online?

How staff recorded their work was also scrutinised: 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.

Have they got the year wrong or are they talking about something else that happened a year ago?

Hypothesising about demand isn’t the remit of the CQC.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) took immediate enforcement action against the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust when it completed the inspection in November, which rated the service overall “inadequate” and highlighted overwhelming caseloads, deficient record-keeping and poor leadership.

Has it gone from good to inadequate?

The emphasis in the article is on the waiting times, what about pressure on CAMHS? No mention of social contagion or the increased profile of the Tavistock as a cure all for gender dysphoria.

The idea that this organisation should be allowed to press ahead as before given the Keira Bell case, the review and now this, is laughable.

It looks like the low rating is primarily due to the long waiting list at the Tavistock?