Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GIDS rated ‘inadequate’ by CQC

194 replies

TheFleegleHasLanded · 20/01/2021 00:28

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

OP posts:
Blubellsarebells · 20/01/2021 22:07

"Ah so we get to it you don't think the service is wrong just trans people?"
I dont know what this means.
I think the service is very wrong from the bits of the report I've read.
Very wrong and very worrying.
The service is for children.
Not trans people.
Bearing in mind 80odd% will desist if left alone, most of the children presenting are not trans.

Doyoumind · 20/01/2021 22:08

Initially I was thinking a mouth was a high orifice but actually your ears and nose are higher, but which is the highest?

Whatwouldscullydo · 20/01/2021 22:10

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?

Again I wonder if its purely self sabotage. How, if you don't know why can't you be so sure current approaches are working.

Why doesn't anyone want to explore every avenue to ensure that everyone receives the best care possible.

It makes no sense. Why is poor care that's not targeted towards the patients, because they haven't looked into why those patients are there better than a well researched targeted care ?

Plussizejumpsuit · 20/01/2021 22:10

@yourhairiswinterfire

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.

How I talk has nothing to do with anything. I'm educated to postgraduate level. This just makes you look like snob.

I think it's pretty fucking grim to live in a world where we don't have any fun with language. Love a bit of slang and made up words. We don't have to speak very formally. Especially on an Internet forum but you do you. I know who one of us comes across as real uptight.

It's also pretty pathetic that to try to discredit my opinion you need to pick at my language. But it propbaly sayore about you than me.

Also not sure why I'd claim my partner worked at CQC when he doesn't? Shittest false claim!

Plussizejumpsuit · 20/01/2021 22:11

@Doyoumind

Initially I was thinking a mouth was a high orifice but actually your ears and nose are higher, but which is the highest?
I suppose any orafice can be high depending on how you position your body?!
Overrunwithlego · 20/01/2021 22:12

The ratings for the responsive (where the access issues are reported) and the well led key questions were inadequate. CQC uses aggregation rules to determine the overall rating - and these two inadequate ratings are the reason the service as a whole was rated inadequate (if only one of them had been rated inadequate, then the service as a whole would be RI). The key questions of safe and effective were rated Requires Improvement - so there are certainly issues there, but they are not the reason the overall rating was inadequate. Caring was Good.

Plussizejumpsuit · 20/01/2021 22:12

Anyway I'm off to bed! It's been fun guys!

Night night xxx 1

PlantMam · 20/01/2021 22:14

Interestingly, just yesterday (when I was looking at researchgate for something else) I noticed that GIDS has it’s own team of researchers, led by research psychologist:

www.researchgate.net/profile/Una_Masic

‘Currently I work as a Research Psychologist in the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) for children, managing a research team to explore the influence of gender identity on various psychological and psychosocial factors. Previous roles include managing a team of researchers assessing the influence of non-nutritive sweetened beverages on active weight loss and weight maintenance in overweight and obese participants over a two year trial (SWITCH) and assessing the impact of foods especially developed to improve satiation and satiety (SATIN)’

bishopgiggles · 20/01/2021 22:18

At a push you'd probably say safety and effectiveness should have been the utmost priority. We're dealing with vulnerable kids, you don't take any chances re safeguarding if you're doing your job properly.
The fact that this safeguarding isn't even built in to reporting procedures, let alone the whole issue of consent etc - the mind boggles.

These sentences alone just has me shaking my head
"The records of young people who began medical treatment before January 2020 did not include a record of their capacity, competency and consent. When staff identified records without a written capacity assessment, they did not seek to address this or record it as an incident."

AnnaMagnani · 20/01/2021 22:31

Caring is always Good unless you really are a bunch of shits.

I had a look at a job where the staff had called in CQC as it was that bad. They still got Good for Caring as, well the staff did care, and the patients thought everything was lovely - despite massive staff turnoff, complete demoralisation due to bullying, no safeguarding or education, no care plans, the list went on and on.

But the feed back from patients and relatives was excellent.

NotBadConsidering · 20/01/2021 22:40

Only a completely twisted view would determine that an NHS clinic offering children inadequate care, the lowest possible rating, is actually our fault.

What’s wrong with these people?

EdgeOfACoin · 20/01/2021 22:45

How is not keeping a record of consent a direct result of long waiting times?

These are separate issues.

Whatwouldscullydo · 20/01/2021 22:51

Only a completely twisted view would determine that an NHS clinic offering children inadequate care, the lowest possible rating, is actually our fault

We are women everything's our fault Hmm

Overrunwithlego · 20/01/2021 23:00

Yes, caring has largely been about the staff to patient interaction so is rarely less than good, because as a rule of thumb people don’t work in the nhs to be shits. Does happen though - my local acute trust was once inadequate for caring, and rightly so. It’s much better now...

2fallsagain · 20/01/2021 23:04

II'm going to share ssauk statement on this as I think it will be of interest. We were appalled that they are trying to twist this into a judgement based on waiting times. The report is damning.

The Care Quality Commission inspection report into the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Gender Identity Service has found it to be ‘inadequate’. It is a truly shocking read. It has identified multiple areas of concern.

We are appalled at the spin that this is just about waiting times. It is not. This is a national safeguarding scandal.

There are many questions that must be asked (and answered) about why so many children are experiencing distress around their gender in the first place. There has been an exponential rise from 77 referrals in 2009/10 to over 2700 in 2019/20. Most of these are girls. What has gone wrong in our society? Why are we failing to challenge gender stereotypes? What are children looking at online? Are we adequately challenging sexism and homophobia in schools? What are children being taught in schools? We have seen many materials produced for schools which appear politically driven and could have contributed to this dramatic increase.

This regulatory capture in our society has gone so far that even the report into this scandal uses highly contested, ideological language such as ‘assigned sex at birth’. This must stop. Sex is observed at birth, usually by medical professionals. Mistakes are rarely made.

We are incredibly grateful to the children’s commissioner and all others who raised concerns. This has enabled this important inspection to take place. We are appalled at the inadequate standards of care and safeguarding revealed here. It is unacceptable that these very vulnerable children have been subjected to this.

The inadequate record keeping, more details of which have been exposed by the evidence in the Keira Bell case, we believe are verging on criminal. Failing to work together with other professionals is a failing repeatedly found in Serious Case Reviews, that have been carried out once children have been seriously harmed.

The fact that some staff said they ‘felt unable to raise concerns without fear of retribution’ is horrifying and certainly not conducive to the effective safeguarding of these vulnerable children. It is also disturbing that not all staff were up to date with mandatory training. If everybody was up to date with their radicalisation training it may have been easier for staff to be mindful of what children or their parents might have been viewing online.
It is essential that anybody working with children is up to date with all applicable safeguarding training and alert to at all times to any potential concerns. It is paramount that they feel supported to voice any concerns they have.

We find it bizarre that ‘a young person taking an overdose of over-the-counter medicines after their therapeutic session evoked traumatic memories’ and ‘a member of the public posting abusive messages about the service on social media’ are seen as comparable by both the service and the report. Both of these are described as ‘incidents’. Why is the suicide attempt not a serious incident?

Reading through this report, our shock increases on every page. Statements such as: “Staff had only recently begun to record consent & capacity or competence clearly for young people who might have impaired mental capacity or competence,” must not be allowed to overshadowed by concerns about waiting times. Sufficient attention must be given to the lack of appropriate record keeping.

The report states “the service provided an illustrated guide to puberty & hormone blockers for young people who may find it difficult to read detailed text.” We find it absolutely staggering that children who needed pictorial guides were ever deemed capable to consent to potential sterilisation.

This sentence, “There appeared to be no framework for discharge other than young people reaching the age of 18,” contravenes the claim that puberty blockers are merely a ‘pause button’. It would appear to suggest that once on the medical pathway all the children proceed to cross sex hormones. This was backed up by evidence heard in the recent Keira Bell Case.

We would encourage people to read the report in full then support Keira Bell....

Read in tweet form here: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1351980930790002689?s=20

TiersDryOnTheirOwn · 20/01/2021 23:15

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-vindication-of-the-tavistock-whistleblowers

James Kirkup in the Spectator.

persistentwoman · 20/01/2021 23:20

A very thorough response from SSAUK. Great organisation. And pleased to see the suggestion that people read the report (as opposed to listening their friend/neighbour/partner who knows someone's cat who works somewhere and is an authority on this)

Binglebong · 20/01/2021 23:22

Does anyone know when the Newsnight report is being shown? I was expecting it tonight but it is all Biden.

TheGreatWave · 20/01/2021 23:23

@Plussizejumpsuit

My partner works for CQC and we talked about this. It's very much an access issue. As in person are waiting too long.
If your partner does indeed work for the CQC then they will know that not keeping adequate records is a bloody major thing, as in a being struck off, no longer able to practice scale. "I didn't have time." is no defence nor is the fact that there was a big waiting list.

Strange that people want these children to have care that is substandard as long as it is quicker. The need to keep accurate records is so intertwined in the standards and proficiencies that there is no excuse for it to happen on this scale. Those individuals would have signed to say they are working within the standards, but the evidence in that report suggests otherwise.

I actually feel that the fact it is GIDS is a little irrelevant, no service should have such an appalling slapdash attitude towards record keeping.

ArabellaScott · 20/01/2021 23:25

Strange that people want these children to have care that is substandard as long as it is quicker.

Isn't it?

Binglebong · 20/01/2021 23:27

Sorry who is SSAUK? I just get self storage come up when I google.

Whoever they are they write a powerful response.

TheGreatWave · 20/01/2021 23:30

@Binglebong

Sorry who is SSAUK? I just get self storage come up when I google.

Whoever they are they write a powerful response.

Safe schools alliance UK.
persistentwoman · 20/01/2021 23:31

Safe Schools Alliance Binglebong. They're doing sterling work in schools supporting parents in keeping lobby groups out of schools and challenging how this ideology is being unthinkingly pushed at children.

2fallsagain · 20/01/2021 23:31

@Binglebong

Sorry who is SSAUK? I just get self storage come up when I google.

Whoever they are they write a powerful response.

We are a grassroots organising dedicated to putting safeguarding at the heart of all school policies. Here is our website (the statement will be there tomorrow)

safeschoolsallianceuk.net

2fallsagain · 20/01/2021 23:33

We have letters, fact sheets and other resources to help parents challenge their schools on policy and RSE. We have supported two girls take legal action against Oxfordshire county council and CPS.

Swipe left for the next trending thread