Other highlights from the Newsnight thread
10 staff members had caseloads of less than 10 young people, but one member of staff had a caseload of over 100. The overall average was 45, which increased to 52.5 when staff with caseloads under ten were removed. 9/
Why were some staff more popular than others??
While some records demonstrated good practice, others had ‘limited information.’ Eg “one record had very little information about risks, despite the referral letter stating that the young person had frequent suicidal thoughts and had previously harmed themselves by cutting.” 11/
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.” 12/
Wtf.
The CQC reviewed 35 care records: “There was no clear rationale for clinical decision making.” The report notes wide variation in practice and in length of assessment, yet the Tavistock hadn't tried to understand why this was. 14/
Ideology and lobby group pressure was leading here
The report highlights the high % of GIDS patients with autism spectrum disorders. 28% young people assessed were referred for medical treatment. But, “records showed that the service may not have fully investigated or considered the needs" of autistic patients. 17/
Anyone surprised?
The CQC says that while “Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the primary needs of the patient group,” they “did not necessarily have the skills or experience to meet the needs of young people with complex needs.” 19/
Bit of a problem this...
“However, whilst staff demonstrated their work on helping young people to understand information about treatment, there were very few details on the records of staff engaging in the more difficult task of supporting young people weigh-up the foreseeable risks and consequences”22/
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.” 23/
Errrr how can you claim anything in a court case about consent when you are actively seeking it properly and documenting it?? Its a conveyer belt for drugs...
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.” 24/
Er what?!
22 young people receiving care and treatment from GIDS were interviewed as well as the parents of 13 young people using the service. “Feedback from these people was overwhelmingly positive.” 34/
This is not necessarily a good thing. Not if the serve is merely doing what people are demanding (possibly under the influence of social media or parents) rather than properly assessing their needs.
It apologised to patients and their families for the length of time they are waiting to be seen, and acknowledged the difficulty this caused. “We very much accept the need for improvements in our assessments, systems and processes,” they added. 36/
This seems to be the only apology from the Tavi... Nothing about any other lack of proper procedure and safeguarding...
Its appalling.
I have to say that Newsnight reporting to the CQC is a real public service...