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

Place-marking, you’re doing an amazing job, I’m reading all of it 👍

What in the world?

SA was hauled in for a surprise HR meeting and told that a letter is being placed on her file with no right of appeal -- because she mentioned Jimmy Saville in the context of GIDS outside of a safeguarding training??

That's ... Ludicrous?

AP refers to Hodge Report into SA’s claims – p832 – notes of his interview with DS; cites ref to Bell report and you seem to be saying that was written with a lot of input from SA.

DS – no. I wld say that in either version, that was my understanding there was input from Sonia… I don’t remember my exact words – that there was ‘a lot’ or not
EJG – do you think AH has got that right?

DS – I don’t think so. My coming away with interview with SA was that she did not want continuing involvement with DB report.

AP – did you say SA ‘back pedalled’?
DS – No those are AH’s words
AP puts that the note implies that DS believed SA did co-author report/regarded her as suspicious
DS – No. SA was v clear that she was not at all a co-author, so I didn’t think she was.

AP (832) – refers to “just marking her card” when talking about meeting with SA about JS
DS – That is not a phrase I would use
AP – because you’ll know that is not a neutral act…it’s implying you’ve noted what they’ve done and you’re watching them
DS – I have nothing else to say

AP – you wanted her to be unsettled by this didn’t you
DS – I completely disagree
AP – and the reason was for her protected disclosures and her involvement with the Bell Report
DS – I respectfully disagree

QUESTIONS FROM EJG...
EJG – you say you found SA argumentative and difficult to manage – on what did you base that opinion?

DS – in terms of trying to set tasks in s/g; IT felt hard to have straightforward conversations ‘she wld simply end up arguing about everything’. I don’t have specific egs– just getting a bit of a commentary from her on straightforward tasks. ‘it felt v difficult with Miss A’

‘It was a constant pushback to my seeking assurances from her… what she was planning in the coming period’ etc
EJG – can you give an eg of an operational task where you wanted assurance and she blanked you

DS – Eg the audits are an operational task; I don’t remember the exact details, but that’s an example.
EJG – 1507 par 61 – you said in your review – “it is
important that the continuing enhancements in safeguarding framework within the service are ...

Masdintle
That's just appalling, so sorry you went through that 💐

"accompanied by respectful support from central safeguarding resources.” The implication is that support had not always been respectful?
DS – throughout the review I was aware of a breakdown in the relationship between central s/g and GIDS ...

DS- I was trying to reframe that; it is not pointed at an individual. SA is not the only member of that team.
EJG – that sounds like to me that GIDS did have good relationship with central team because they were using their time?

DS – I didn’t hear it that way. There were concerns about not going to s/g; concerns about the Bell report; concern that people were raising s/g issues simply because families bringing children to gids. There was a
‘general lack of trust within safeguarding across the piece’

EJG – were you suggesting that the support was disrespectful or not respectful?
DS says he heard a picture of quite a lot of suspicion and mistrust
EJG – did you have in mind what GR had said about the claimant and JS?

DS – Clearly that was one of the concerns that was brought up… it was part of what I was worried about it
EJG – so from what you heard, the claimant had an attitude about what gids did
DS – I heard certain members of staff expressing that concern… even beyond the JS allegation

EJG – you didn’t tell SA that allegation came from GR
DS – yes – to preserve anonymity
EJG – what did you want to achieve from your meeting with SA in July 2019?
DS – in broad terms, to draw a line under the issue and move on

EJG – so matter you saw was lack of trust between claimant and GR?
DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service
EJG – important it was GR because he was the s/g lead and needed a good working relationship with the claimant
DS – Yes

EJG – So instead of talking about the remark itself, couldn’t you have said I’ve heard you and GR may have some issues, perhaps we need to build some bridges?

DS – I cld have, but thought if I didn’t say exactly what the concerns were it wouldn’t work(?), but also had advice from HR

EJG – so started out with learning that GR had a problem with SA, but nothing was going to change because SA didn’t know GR had a problem with her

DS – It wasn’t just GR. Other staff were weary about what was reported to have been said. I wanted to make SA aware but also not to take it forward in a formal manner. I was trying to get people to move on

EJG – we don’t know who that other person was, but one might think the relationship betw SA and GR was important. Are you saying that SA knew the relationship were difficult?
DS – I don’t know…. Until we received letter of claim we did not know SA was having any difficulties

EJG – it seems the claimant didn’t know GR had a problem with her, but you did, so one way of taking it forward was to establish with the claimant that she and GR needed to build some bridges… something like that

DS – I was trying to get service safeguarding leads to come together with the central team in a forum.
YG seeking clarification on a few issues raised in DS’s evidence this morning.

END OF DR SINHA'S EVIDENCE
LUNCH

Is it usual for the judge to ask so many questions seeking clarity?

Thanks for posting, Itsa. HannahBarnes is doing a brilliant job.

@InvisibleDragon

What in the world?

SA was hauled in for a surprise HR meeting and told that a letter is being placed on her file with no right of appeal -- because she mentioned Jimmy Saville in the context of GIDS outside of a safeguarding training??

That's ... Ludicrous?

I know! And she gets a letter put on her file for ever with no right if appeal as a result.

And when you compare that to 3 different people claiming that PC is telling everyone not to take safeguarding issues to the central team but keep it in house, and nothing seems to come of it ...

Yes, thank you, ItsAll. I'm finding it hard to concentrate on anything elsebecause I keep refreshing the thread.

DS is certainly coming across as....less than helpful. And also strangely forgetful.

It seems like a really toxic working environment. Lots of insinuations but nothing concrete ever said or recorded. In some ways I imagine a formal investigation would have been better for SA, she could have exonerated, and that would be it done with. Instead she has a letter on her file, and a threat of further action hanging over her.

And when you compare it to this - I think he is probably referring to the Saville remark because no other 'words' have been mentioned:

"DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service"

The nasty lady was a meany by talking about potential disasters we should avoid, but using words that made us sad.

@Masdintle

Is it usual for the judge to ask so many questions seeking clarity?

I don't know, I would like to know too.

Next witness is GIDS director Dr Polly Carmichael (PC)

Thank you for copying the tweets here. I’m going to read later.

AP - par 20 - wld you agree that only recently the central S-g team have been referred to that way?
PC - don’t know … Would see the trust safeguarding team and central safeguarding team as the same thing

Ap - p398 SB - GIDS board paper July 2018 - on 402 you say we’ve completed a review of how safeguarding concerns are documented… appointed a team safeguarding lead who will liaise with the central team; suggests you’ve just appointed GR as lead

PC - I understand that a big distinction is being made between link and lead. In GIDS itself he became the safeguarding lead on the ground. There wasn’t a specific date that he became it. Sorry that’s not more concrete but that’s my reality
Ap - that’s fine

395 - email from PC saying she will identify someone as a link. Pc - don’t know where word comes from but intention is to improve communication betw GIDS and trust safeguarding team

Ap - 249 - GIDS organisational chart. GR there - and he’s a senior?
PC - yes one of the management team. Pc confirms that exec sits above that

PC says nothing was put in writing about GR’s role. It was about communication and having a named individual in the team. And it evolved from there
… I was aware of the want to have other leads in other services but there wasn’t a job description at the time

AP takes PC through SA’s job description. Then GR’s - ‘GIDS specialises social worker’. Wld you agree there’s nothing here about safeguarding specialities?

PC - I agree there’s nothing specifically about taking the role of S/g lead but thing lay in it like taking supervision that would relate to that type of role.

AP - so was primary requirement someone who sat inside GIDS, rather than a specific safeguarding professional

Pc - it’s not as simple as that… clinicians have previous experiences, so when I’m looking for individuals their background experience is highly relevant and this was someone who had extensive experience in his previous posts

Ap suggests that GR doesn’t become lead until august 2018. Safeguarding procedure of Nov ‘17 (SB 261) does not mention other safeguarding staff outside of named professionals.

(303) April 2020 - on this occasion we see that primary responsibility still lies with names professionals but among new people mentioned are service line safeguarding leads inc GIDS. So follows that change occurred between the two

Pc - from these documents, yes. But it’s nominal from my perspective. It was official in the service before that. It was a service role in terms of being safeguarding lead for the GIDS, and not a trust role

Ap - and it’s important to you that it’s a service role, not a trust one
Pc - I don’t understand. It in no way undermines any of the trust roles. It was there for a specific purpose to improve communication - as we know

I think you’re dating things based on documents… that role developed. We used the words safeguarding lead in GIDS to describe the link role

the disingenuousness of saying that because there's no direct email instruction not to raise to Sonia means there wasn't an implied understanding is making my teeth itch. That's not how humans work!

This from a few pages back… What a ridiculous suggestion, that someone telling staff not to go to the safeguarding team (obviously something that should never be said) would be put in writing, and suggesting that because it isn’t in writing, therefore it didn’t happen.

There are occasions when people say things verbally and don’t put them in writing precisely in order that they can deny it later, usually when they know perfectly well that they’re doing or saying something that’s a bit (or in this case, a lot) off.

And three people reporting such a statement being dismissed because others didn’t raise it. Did he ask them if they’d heard it, or did he assume that it could be dismissed because they didn’t mention it at all?

How many whistleblowers do you need to make you think perhaps there’s something untoward going on that needs to be examined specifically?

He might well have been brought in because he was not seen to have pre-existing bias, but it appears that he very quickly chose a side. There doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to mediate. SA was assumed to have been a problem that needed to be sorted out.

Thank you for the updates.

Three people make very specific allegations about PC restricting safeguarding = nothing to see here.

One person upset because they don't like the idea of how safeguarding works = surprise meeting with threat of letter on file with no appeal.

Ap - wld you agree that someone can agree to something at the time without knowing how it would turn out. SA might not have agreed to accept the role if she’d known further down the line people wld be told not to go to her

Pc - don’t agree people were told not to go to her. The role was always going to be an evolving one. I don’t agree with that question really

Ap - 56 (Tavi’s defence) - suggests to pc that link and lead were very different things. Would you accept that

Pc - in order to act as a voice for the service you need to have a position as a lead. I do genuinely think the two terms are used interchangeably.

Ap - am I right in thinking that GIDS was first service to have its own safeguarding lead
Pc - I can’t accurately answer that
Ap - but you say he was appointed link/lead because you wanted in house lead and policy followed from that

Pc - it wasn’t that I wanted it, it was discussed with medical director and others

Ap - 1452 Anastassis Spiliadis transcript he says people were not encouraged to go outside the GIDS team. He’s referring to the GIDS lead not being in place until sept 2018…

he then goes on to say that up until then there was a clear message from senior management t about being cautious about how we speak to the central safeguarding team at the Tavi, specifically SA. That’s right isn’t it?

Pc - No. clearly incorrect about the timing of the role. And doubly incorrect to suggest there was any caution about going to central team

Ap - he quite emphatic about what he says

Pc - he says that. I’m saying it’s not true. I didn’t have many meetings with AS. And only discussed a few cases with him. The context of the service is very complicated and there is dispute about what would amount to a safeguarding concern in relation to gender dysphoria

I totally dispute that I ever said do not go to Sonia