Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Review of the governance of the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which is responsible for the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), has found 'multiple' issues

26 replies

ChristinaXYZ · 24/01/2022 16:37

"NEW: A review of the governance of the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which is responsible for the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), has found 'multiple' issues and recommended leadership arrangements be strengthened. "

Thread on twitter by BBC journalist Hannah Barnes

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1485646423274229760

OP posts:
ScreamingMeMe · 24/01/2022 17:29

Oooh.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 24/01/2022 17:31

I’m neither shocked nor surprised that their governance is so lacking in robustness. Question is what will they do about it

ScreamingMeMe · 24/01/2022 17:32

As another twitter user said: that's a very polite way to say that they have no fucking clue what they're doing.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 24/01/2022 17:36

Thread on twitter by BBC journalist Hannah Barnes

I know Deb Cohen has moved on but she and Hannah Barnes merit a lot of accolades for this story.

Goatsaregreat · 24/01/2022 17:38

The review team observed a heavy reliance on verbal assurance, lack of oversight and scrutiny, lack of focus on risk ...

Given the unethical use of untested / off label medication on children and the acknowledged influence of the very toxic self interested adult groups / individuals, is anyone surprised at this?

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 24/01/2022 17:46

Stella O'Malley's podcast had an interesting episode saying that the Tavi was not part of the NHS when it started. So, it's been influenced by Queer Theory from the very start, rather than built on empirical evidence. Which probably explains the default affirmation and lack of differential diagnoses that seems to happen at GIDS.

Which explains rather a lot.

WarriorN · 24/01/2022 18:00

No shit Sherlock,

WarriorN · 24/01/2022 18:02

My mother who worked in social care and with young people with disabilities said the Tavistock was a very well respected (not sure what it was, institution ?) in the past.

From my own slight understanding of them over the years it was getting involved with mermaids that was a key factor.

Hoardasurass · 24/01/2022 18:26

Well this doesn't look good for the Tavistock.
Does anyone know when the cass report is due?

Theeyeballsinthesky · 24/01/2022 18:27

I don’t think having Paul burstow as chair helped. He’s still deeply involved with the Lib Dems & would have been heavily influenced by their pro affirmation model stance (amongst other tnings!)

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 24/01/2022 18:30

@Hoardasurass

Well this doesn't look good for the Tavistock. Does anyone know when the cass report is due?
I looked on the site earlier today, no update on when it will be delivered.
ferretface · 24/01/2022 19:00

The Tavistock needs NEDs who will scrutinise and hold to account. I wonder if this is a chance to get some of them on board?

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 24/01/2022 19:09

@ferretface

The Tavistock needs NEDs who will scrutinise and hold to account. I wonder if this is a chance to get some of them on board?
I would like Sheila O'Malley or others to consider applying.
Helleofabore · 24/01/2022 19:15

How very unsurprising.

ChristinaXYZ · 24/01/2022 19:15

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Thread on twitter by BBC journalist Hannah Barnes

I know Deb Cohen has moved on but she and Hannah Barnes merit a lot of accolades for this story.

Agree totally.
OP posts:
AnotherLass · 24/01/2022 20:35

I was listening to some of Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayed podcasts and one of them said something I thought was interesting on the Ken Zucker one: Zucker has incredibly senior, he was basically the world expert on childhood gender dysphoria. And the fact that his clinic was shut due to daring to go against affirmation, on trumped up charges, would have been noted by every clinician in the world, including those at GIDS. If they can get Zucker they can get anyone.

ThePrionOne · 24/01/2022 21:27

@ScreamingMeMe

As another twitter user said: that's a very polite way to say that they have no fucking clue what they're doing.
Presumably those who did know what they were doing either left themselves because they couldn’t countenance what was happening, or were removed for not having the “right” attitude.
Goatsaregreat · 24/01/2022 21:32

Here's David Bell (ex GIDs) talking in one of the Nolan podcasts about the consequences for vulnerable children of focussing on the trans issue over and above their other problems. It's such a sad piece.

fairplayforwomen.com/nolan-investigates-stonewall-5/

highame · 25/01/2022 07:55

The external report is contained in this month’s board papers, which have now been removed from online.

Must have been a lot of people commenting, has anyone got a link to the report?

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 25/01/2022 11:18

I saw the advert for NEDs and a Chair, still claiming the Tavistock has a 'good' rating, like everything's hunky dory there.

I have previously been a NED of a health board and there was a significant amount of training involved, notably in the fields of mental health, legislation and capacity. The quality of that training was excellent - impartial, up-to-date, open and transparent. I would hope the new Tavistock NEDs insist on the same.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 25/01/2022 11:20

@highame

The external report is contained in this month’s board papers, which have now been removed from online.

Must have been a lot of people commenting, has anyone got a link to the report?

I don't. My first knowledge of its existence was when Hannah B posted but it had already been removed by then so I know nothing more than the extracts she quoted.
ArabellaScott · 25/01/2022 12:17

Children and YP deserve better than this.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 25/01/2022 12:25

I'd also love a link to the report!

Bosky · 25/01/2022 13:54

The report is back online:

Twitter - Hannah Barnes
twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1485953355075788805

"The Board papers are now available online again. You you can read the report making recommendations about the Tavistock's governance (from page 71) here:

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/governance/board-of-directors/meetings/

Review of the governance of the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which is responsible for the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), has found 'multiple' issues
Bosky · 25/01/2022 14:18

OMG!

Office of Modern Governance
Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Well Led Review
Final Draft Report
3 December 2021

Extracts highlighted by Hannah Barnes:

page 74 of 181

Gender identity services

1.15 The Gender Identity Service (GIDS) is commissioned by NHS England. The service is commissioned to provide assessments of young people, refer young people for medical treatment when appropriate and provide some continuing support when this is required. It is a national specialist service and is the only service available in England for children and young people with gender dysphoria. The service also treats children and young people from Wales.

1.16 The CQC undertook a focused inspection of the service in October 2020 and the report, published in January 2021, rated the service “inadequate”, driven by “inadequate” ratings for the ‘responsive’ and ‘well led’ CQC domains.

1.17 The GIDS Judicial Review around capacity and consent of children receiving hormone intervention for gender dysphoria has furthermore been a significant focus for the Trust and has resulted in significant media scrutiny on the Trust. The Trust successfully appealed a High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal in September 2021.

1.18 The Trust is also working closely with the NHS England commissioned Independent Review being led by Dr Hilary Cass, former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health which is looking at the wider care pathway for young people with issues about gender identity.

page 80

We observed a lack of challenge and effective scrutiny of the executives by NEDs, and not enough evidence of holding to account. NEDs are skilful and knowledgeable about the Trust but often very ready to accept positive assurances without always fully testing and probing. This point was made to us on a number of occasions and we were able to directly observe that ourselves in meetings

page 81

Concerns that the recent safeguarding Employment Tribunal has impacted the ability of staff to be able speak up if they have concerns

▪ Review the Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU): Raising Concerns and Whistleblowing Procedure in the light of the recent Employment Tribunal and use this as an opportunity to ensure the new process is communicated to staff across the Trust

▪ A considerable amount of the SR is about addressing deep seated cultural issues and given its scale and ambition in this regard, this will need significant investment in capacity and capability, particularly in relation to Human Resources (HR) and Organisational Development (OD)

▪ Board oversight processes and mechanisms for providing insight and assurance on people and culture could be strengthened

▪ The external review of race equality has yielded an outpouring of emotion that suggests many BAME staff do not feel consistently supported, respected or valued. There is now a key question about how the Board responds with pace to the deliverability of that change

▪ A number of Board Committees have a number of features that are not consistent with governance good practice, particularly in relation to the role of NEDs. and the rigour with which these Committees conduct their business. As configured they are not providing a robust assurance route to the Board

▪ While recognising some current gaps in resources supporting these Committees several aspects of the way the current Committees operate - limited papers at several of the Committee meetings we observed, a heavy reliance on verbal assurance, lack of oversight and scrutiny, lack of focus on risk, limited evidence of linkage between Committees, poor reporting to the Board, is not consistent with governance good practice or what we have observed elsewhere in the NHS

▪ Committee reporting to the Board is in our view weak as currently established and fails to provide the level of assurance they should

▪ Consideration should be given to the sequence of Committee and Board meetings to promote more timely reporting and upwards assurance to the Board

▪ Our review of the current terms of reference of all Board Committees suggests that they need further review and enhancement

▪ The Committee structure in our view needs to be reconfigured so that it can better provide effective oversight of the key themes emerging from the SR

page 82

The scale of the corporate governance issues we have identified across the Trust are multiple and suggest that the Trust needs to strengthen the corporate governance function and that this cannot await conclusion of the SR

▪ Furthermore, governance support and advice to the Board and its Committees needs to be delivered to a consistent high set of standards by a single central well-resourced corporate governance function

▪ Some NEDs are currently involved in activity that supports the work of the Committees but is far more operational than we would have expected to see

▪ EMT meetings to ensure all key programmes of work are effectively managed in a structured way take place for less time at the Trust than we have observed elsewhere in the NHS

▪ Meetings to hold divisional leadership to account for delivery across all key work streams need to be strengthened

page 85

4. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations Concluding remarks

4.1 The boards of all NHS providers have a substantial and challenging agenda to address over the next few years.

4.2 Alongside a range of Trust specific issues, there are external challenges around addressing the regulatory landscape, operating in a post pandemic world, and operating within the ICS.

4.3 For the Trust Board to successfully address this agenda will require effective and sustained Board leadership, using the recommendations we have made as the primary focus for that.

4.4 Whilst our review has identified a number of development areas, we also observed and heard many positive examples to demonstrate that there is a very exciting agenda available to the Trust Board if they focus on the right things.

4.5 We also strongly believe that the Trust Board has all the constituent elements to be effective and is serious about board leadership, board processes and effective governance.

4.6 In that sense, this review presents a unique opportunity to further renew and reinvigorate the governance arrangements within the Trust and our recommendations in this concluding section of this report seek to do that.

4.7 Addressing the areas for development that we have identified as part of this review in a systematic manner, building on progress to date and drawing on learning from other sectors will, we have no doubt, noticeably accelerate Board leadership and governance arrangements at the Trust.

Recommendations

4.8 In taking the issues we have identified in our report forward, the Trust the Board should take the following recommendations we have set out below forward.

4.9 We suggest that the Chairman and Chief Executive, consider the findings outlined within this report and support the Governance Team to develop an implementation plan to take our recommendations forward for final approval by the Board.

4.10 This should also set out how the Audit Committee will on behalf of the Board monitor on- going progress and embeddedness.

4.11 We have given each recommendation a priority and a suggested timescale for implementation, but recognise that the Board will wish to review these carefully to ensure that the subsequent implementation plan is owned and deliverable.

=========

page 12

As Directors will be aware the Trust Chair, Paul Burstow, has announced his intention to step down from the end of April 2022. With the support of the ICS, we are proceeding to appoint a new Chair. We are also taking the opportunity to appoint to two NED vacancies which will occur by the end of the year.

Review of the governance of the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which is responsible for the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), has found 'multiple' issues
Swipe left for the next trending thread