GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

(Text from their crowdfunder)

My Details

My name is Sonia Appleby. I am a qualified social worker (1981); adult psychoanalytic psychotherapist (I992); MSc. in health psychology, (research) and MBA. I have a long career safeguarding and protecting children in social care, health and as a children’s guardian in public and private proceedings.

I am currently the Named Professional for Safeguarding Children and the Safeguarding Children Lead at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. I am therefore still employed by the Trust against which I am bringing my claim.

What is Safeguarding?

In all NHS trusts and organisations there are professionals such as myself, who work with other internal departments and external agencies to ensure there are 'root and branch' systems to keep patients and service users safe. This means responding to patient/service users' personal experiences, also including their environmental, familial, community/peer circumstances and sometimes any of the aforementioned domains could require the intervention of other professionals in different agencies. Safeguarding children and young people also concerns ensuring there is a sufficiently, healthy culture that does not unwittingly contribute to potential harm regarding the people who use and deliver NHS services.

Safeguarding within the Trust

My primary task is to ensure that clinicians protect their patients/service users from avoidable harm and are also able to recognize and appropriately respond to situations where under 18s are in need of safeguarding. My secondary task is challenge practices which are either harmful or could lead to harm. The Trust is commissioned by NHS England to deliver a National Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), which provides services for children and adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The treatments available also include "puberty blockers".

I have sought to ensure the principle of ''safeguarding children and young people'' is upheld whilst service users are being assessed and treated within the GIDS service.

My Claim

I lodged a whistle-blowing claim in November 2019 at the Central London Employment Tribunal. Since then I have made 2 applications to amend my claim as new information came to light.

In my claim, I allege that because I made "protected disclosures" to my line manager regarding concerns raised by GIDS staff ( that the health or safety of patients was being, had been or was likely to be endangered), I was subjected to detriments.

I allege these detriments are:

i) the Tavistock misused it's own procedures to besmirch me and therefore jeopardize the role of safeguarding within the Trust;

ii) there was an unwritten but mandated directive from the Tavistock management that safeguarding concerns should not be brought to my attention despite being the Trust Safeguarding Children Lead;

iii) and, clinicians were discouraged from reporting safeguarding concerns to me.

I also allege various other detriments.

Further to disclosures made to Newsnight by former staff, BBC Newsnight produced a programme focusing on the allegation that the Trust did not want to report any concerns to me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51806962

and you can watch it here

@Manderleyagain

I'm not sure the witness statement are available online viperatthegates. Allison Bailey on twitter: "The witness statement and indeed the public facing ET bundle are in the public domain and will remains so for the duration of the tribunal. It remains to be seen whether the link will be widely publicised. I don't think it's my place to tweet it out."

I guess trial documents are public so journalists can see them, but not necessarily made available to everyone online.

Thanks, I read from that that there is an open link, I just don't know how to find it!

Allison’s tweet is correct, however, the judge made a bit of an unclear comment this morning about how the bundle can and cannot be used by those who have accessed, it so there’s a need to be a bit cautious about the info not covered in the live hearing until there’s clarity.

I was quite surprised at how little Sonia's Barrister questioned her, is that normal?

Hannah B's just tweeted that she may not be able to carry on the live tweeting this afternoon. Nooooo!

What will we do without her? Is anyone else tweeting?

@rogdmum

Allison’s tweet is correct, however, the judge made a bit of an unclear comment this morning about how the bundle can and cannot be used by those who have accessed, it so there’s a need to be a bit cautious about the info not covered in the live hearing until there’s clarity.

Thank you. It will be very interesting reading.

I’m listening in at the moment. AP is trying to clarify the organisational structure with Dr Sinha and how safeguarding fits in.

It’s very noisy with someone drilling on the other side of the wall (I think it’s AP’s wall)!

Are you able to keep us up to date this afternoon, @rogdmum?

Is there anyway the rest of us can listen in too? Or did you need to apply in advance?

I'm really missing the live tweeting, where can we find out what's going on?

It’s pretty painful, TBH. They are talking about management style and whether Dr Sinha had made his expectations clear to SA re what he expected her to run past him and info she was requesting etc.

I’ll be popping in and out so can’t do a running summary but if anything interesting comes up I’ll post.

rogdmum thanks :)

Talking about Anna Hutchinson being concerned about Dr Webberley and a specific case (safeguarding concern- child on CSH and stunting growth concerns- wants to refer to social services) and PC saying she can understand why people use GenderGP.

Dr Sinha says he made a mental note of the concerns. He says he did take advice on individual concerns but did not feel appropriate to single out individual cases in his review report.

Where themes, says did seek advice where appropriate.

I’m unclear what he did about this specific case if anything. AP trying to get clarity. He says he can’t remember this particular case, but generally took these cases to HR.

Hannah Barnes has said she's making notes and add it to the thread later.

More tweets from Hannah coming through now twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1407053384004349958?s=20

Thank.

Day 5 cont…
Afternoon session begins with continued discussion about further disclosure.

The next witness is Dr Dinesh Sinha (DS), Medical Director of Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
DS amends his witness statement in relation to the review he undertook of GIDS: “The review did not identify any immediate issues in relation to patient safety, “however, however, the Report suggested a number of actions to provide a range of improvements
in the GIDS service."

AP goes through some charts showing the staff structure of the Tavistock
DS confirms he joined the Trust in Aug 2018 and was asked to carry out a review of GIDS in the first few weeks.
8:10 PM · Jun 21, 2021·Twitter Web App
1
Retweet
7
Likes
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
Replying to
@hannahsbee
AP refers to DS's witness statement - "I was not familiar with the circumstances which had led up to it. I was asked to undertake the review precisely because I was new to the Trust and was therefore independent and objective...

However, I very quickly became aware that the internal review of GIDS was commissioned following concerns raised by a member of staff, Dr Bell"
AP - What was your impression of SA's involvement?
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
DS - My memory is that at that point I was very new to the organisation and unfamiliar with people. I was determined to clarify her involvement through conducting the review

AP refers DS to David Bell's report and suggests that in terms of SA's involvement he would have known immediately from 1st page that people had raised serious concerns with her and that she had met with Rob Senior; that she had circulated a list of these concerns etc
8:10 PM · Jun 21, 2021·Twitter Web App
7
Likes
Hannah Barnes
@hannahsbee
·
1h
Replying to
@hannahsbee
AP - it would have been clear to you that on the face of it SA's involvement would have been considerable. Do you agree?

DS - i heard lots of things from lots of people during the course of the review...
David Bell appears to claim so - it's his words - I haven't heard from SA at this point

AP refers to emails from October 2018 (479). SA has asked Garry Richardson for safeguarding data. SA is asked for more context by DS and she provides it in email to sally Hodges; he is copied in.
AP says it is a ‘perfectly reasonable response
DS - ‘that is her response’

EJG - what is your response?
DS - I said in my statement I didn’t fully understand what was being said

AP cites DS witness statement where he says that he would expect SA to discuss any substantive safeguarding project to him before proceeding. Asks whether he accepts that different manager have different styles and SA may not have done that with Rob Senior

DS - yes. And I have my own expectations and style, especially being new in the role
AP - had you communicated your expectations to SA?
DS - this was very early on and my response was part of trying to establish that.
EJG - Sonia your answer no?
AP suggests DS comes across with ‘some level of irritation’ -is that right?’
DS - remembering what I was feeling is hard 3 years on… I don’t see anything [in email] about being irritated
AP - sally Hodges replies to SA’s clarification with thanks. Would you accept her response is more civilised and pleasant than yours?
DS - I don’t agree mine was uncivilised. ‘Your choice of words is regrettable.’
AP - SA gives a sig amount of information to you and SH. Rather than take that on you later that day send her a ‘distinctly cool’ response saying she’s not responded and telling her to cancel her meeting with GIDS. You’re coming across as quite hostile aren’t you?
DS - not at all. I’m asking for a direct response. I’ve been copied into a response
AP - do you agree the subject matter (safeguarding) and how it’s recorded is serious?
DS - it’s a serious matter which is why I asked her (SA) to come and speak to me about it

AP asks whether DS read document SA prepared before her GIDS review interview
DS - I read all documents that were provided to me
AP - did you read appendices?
DS - I read everything
AP says these included exit interview of Matt Bristow (former GIDS clinician). Asks if DS accepts this as a protected disclosure
DS - i do
AP - I put it to you that you were hostile to SA in her review meeting
DS - “I absolutely do not accept that”. I used the same framework throughout
AP - you’re aware she’s made protected disclosure?
DS - yes, after this point.
AP asks why DS asks if SA has had any more contact with David Bell. He says he was trying to get the chronology straight with everyone and he presumes that’s why it’s there.
AP suggest an example of DS’s hostility - saying he seems to be telling SA she’s using the wrong word. DS disagrees

AP turns to GIDS review interview with Dr Anna Hutchinson. Says one set of questions is about safeguarding

Hannah Barnes tweeting:

AP reads from AH transcript giving example where child was seeing Dr Webberly. ""One of our clients was seen by her, who had been given cross-sex hormones which our endocrinology team told us would
have stunted that person’s growth, it was damaging this child..."

"We had this big debate whether it was a safeguarding issue and I listened and then said that I think it is a safeguarding issue but it is not for me to judge, we need to refer to social services and they can judge... "

AH reports Polly Carmichael as saying no as she can understand why parents do this. AP says that AH is advocating referring to social services and that's the right approach, in't it?

DS - I don't disagree with what she's saying
AP - But the head of the service disagrees with that
DS seeks to clarify answer and says he 'certainly made a mental note' of what was being said

AP - did that translate into your findings in any way?
DS - i wasn't trying to speak of individual matters of concern in the review of the service. But wherever individual matters were brought up I did seek advice on how to take that further
DS refers AP to his witness statement

AP - You sought advice from HR?
DS - whenever more than one person raised concerns in a theme, I sought advice as appropriate

Thank you Manderleyagain

Thanks for tweeting, Hannah Barnes and reposting, Manderley.

I'm finding it quite a hard case to follow, unfortunately, I think it's really important!

How many more days in court, does anyone know?

Think it was 9 days in total. So would end Friday.

AP - Did you do anything about that allegation - that there is a particular child being damaged by stunted growth and PC did not want to refer it?
DS - i can't remember exact detail of that concern but when things came up thematically i took to HR
AP - this would not be a matter for HR. It's a safeguarding issue
DS - The problem here is what is being attributed to the head of service. And if that was a theme, I would have sought advice
AP - AH tells you "if you go to your supervisor, that is what you get, being told ‘why are you bringing complex cases,? maybe you should get another job?’ "... she's suggesting there is pressure about bringing safeguarding concerns
DS - She is
AP - What she says is since the review GIDS has started bringing safeguarding in house - "stopping taking cases to Sonia Appleby because they think she is ‘bad’, part of the review" - - she's precisely telling you that gids staff are not going to SA
DS - She's saying that. She's one person. I interviewed 31 people and overall I have to listen to everyone and look at the balance of probabilities.
AP refers to AH transcript again and says 'you're shutting her down there'
DS - Not at all
AP - you show a surprising lack of curiosity about safeguarding concerns
DS says it's the reverse of shutting down - I ask her more
AP - No. you say 'you don't know that'
DS - No. we continue to talk about it
DS repeats that where he had themes of individual concerns, or systemic problems he included them or sought advice.
AP - you're not suggesting are you that this is the only person raising taking safeguarding concerns to Polly?
DS - I cannot recall off the top of my head...
.... I did also hear other views that people were offended by hearing children talked about in this way