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.