GIDS rated ‘inadequate’ by CQC

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/gender-identity-development-service-for-children-rated-inadequate

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned but CQC also inspected the GIDS endocrinology clinics at UCHL and Leeds General. Those reports were also released today

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=api.cqc.org.uk/public/v1/reports/f872eff5-95f8-43ac-b258-6eb38615358c?20210120080042 api.cqc.org.uk/public/v1/reports/361b12c1-d97a-4f23-afd3-1d72becd9c2a?20210120080042

Interesting. Unlike the Tavi they have very clear capacity and consent assessments. But they would only be referred there having been assessed by the Tavi as being a 'trans child'. Which brings us back to those problematic, ideologically driven 'assessments' - which the CQC have clearly indicated are lacking in rigour

My partner works for CQC and we talked about this. It's very much an access issue. As in person are waiting too long.

@JamieLeeCurtains

Does this call into question the previous inspection report at all? On the CQC website it (the previous report) is dated 2018, overall 'Good', and 'effectiveness' was 'Outstanding'.

Suddenly after the recent Dec 2020 court ruling its inadequacies, long pointed out on MN to much vicious backlash, have been formally recognised.

Funny, that.

Ratings change all the time. So no it doesn't.

It's also totally normal that a high orifice complaint, incident or court case would trigger an inspection. Especially during the pandemic when routine inspections are curtailed.

According to the report, it’s about a lot more than just waiting times.

My partner works for CQC and we talked about this. It's very much an access issue. As in person are waiting too long.

Your partner obviously hasn’t read the report.

@LizzieSiddal

My partner works for CQC and we talked about this. It's very much an access issue. As in person are waiting too long.

Your partner obviously hasn’t read the report.

Lolz OK.

Not only have they read the report but they have had several meetings with people involved in creating it. But ok you tell me what has happened. Because you know how? Like genuinely how?

By reading the published report. All of it.

But ok you tell me what has happened. Because you know how? Like genuinely how?

Because it's in the report.

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as inadequate because:

• Staff did not develop holistic care plans for young people. Records of clinical sessions did not include any structured plans for care or further action. Staff did not sufficiently 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.

• Staff had not consistently recorded the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment before January 2020. However, since this date these decisions had been recorded.

• The teams did not always include the full range of specialists required to meet the individual needs of the patients. Staff did not always work well together as a multidisciplinary team.

• Staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued. Some said they felt unable to raise concerns without fear of retribution.

• The service was not consistently well-led. Whilst areas for improvement had been identified and some areas improved, the improvements had not been implemented fully and consistently where needed.

It's not just waiting times.

Sometimes I find myself thinking of that wonderful cartoon from the early days of the internet - kind of in the style of Larson, but not Larson.

Golden retriever, tapping away at a computer keyboard. "On the web, no-one knows you're a dog."

Dunno why that suddenly popped into my head.

It's interpretation. The same information can be interpreted in different ways, to add to the picture.

I said was an access issue. People waiting too long and caseloads being too high. They issues mentioned are happening due to soany people seeking to use the service and them not being able to support it.

I'm also still not sure how you reading a report enables you to know someone else hasn't read it. When it's their job? Like quite odd. Did the reading of the report also make you psychic or all knowing? Bizzar.

Reading it enables us to know that the inadequacies reach far, far beyond the waiting times.

Why don’t you give it a go yourself?

Lolz ok, indeed.

@CaraDuneRedux

Sometimes I find myself thinking of that wonderful cartoon from the early days of the internet - kind of in the style of Larson, but not Larson.

Golden retriever, tapping away at a computer keyboard. "On the web, no-one knows you're a dog."

Dunno why that suddenly popped into my head.

What are you trying to say with this?

Even if it was just waiting times (it isn't), is nobody at gids asking where this massive increase in gender confused kids is coming from?
Why so many?
What is driving this?
Could some of them be better served by other services?
Wasn't there supposed to be an enquiry into the 4000% increase of girls being refered?

@ArabellaScott

Lolz ok, indeed.

I mean why let other sources of information get in the way of your anti trans obsession?

What do they need access to?
When and why has gender non conformity been pathologised?
Who is behind this?
Who is benefiting?
So many questions.

@Blubellsarebells

Even if it was just waiting times (it isn't), is nobody at gids asking where this massive increase in gender confused kids is coming from? Why so many? What is driving this? Could some of them be better served by other services? Wasn't there supposed to be an enquiry into the 4000% increase of girls being refered?

So how much understanding do you have over how the NHS is funded? As in general you're paid to provide a service not to ask why a service is needed or do preventative work. That tends to be funded through other sources. Surely you know the NHS is not joined up!

The Hilary Cass review is currently looking at the bonkers increase: www.england.nhs.uk/2020/09/nhs-announces-independent-review-into-gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people/

Dr Cass has an impressive CV. Let’s hope the review is good and thorough.

I mean why let other sources of information get in the way of your anti trans obsession?

What ''other sources''? A random on the internet that talks like a teenager, claiming their partner works for CQC?

Nah, we should stick with the facts of the report, which this thread is about.

@Blubellsarebells

What do they need access to? When and why has gender non conformity been pathologised? Who is behind this? Who is benefiting? So many questions.

Ah so we get to it you don't think the service is wrong just trans people?

I mean if we're going to argue re pathologising stuff. Depression in women just used to be called hysteria until medicine advanced and we had a better understanding of psychology. So I think we can't dismiss stuff just because it never used to be.

The Tavistock and Portman is a teaching trust that does lots of research in house.

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/research-and-innovation/our-research/

GIDS is a national service, funded directly by NHS England.

Sorry, am I the only person who doesn't know what a "high orifice complaint" is?

I will admit I know almost nothing about nhs funding.
I just find it shocking that the management there have apparently shown zero curiosity about the massive increase in cases being refered, or if that might mean they need to change the approach to the way they triage patients or give treatments.
Do you think if cancer doctors were seeing a 4000% increase in teenage girls presenting with skin cancer they might ask why or wonder about prevention?

@bishopgiggles

Sorry, am I the only person who doesn't know what a "high orifice complaint" is?

Typo

High profile complaint