Completed - and linked below - Independent Patient Safety Investigation into prescribing practices at WellBN GP practice in Brighton and Hove

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.surreysussex.icb.nhs.uk/ipsi-wellbn-general-practice-brighton/

The exec summary alone is damning.

"Care at the Practice for the 78 children and young people fell substantially below that set out in service specifications and national clinical policy. Puberty blockers and gender enhancing medications were prescribed without a comprehensive bio-psychosocial assessment (in 22 cases without even face-to-face appointments having taken place) without essential baseline and ongoing investigations and in 75 cases without referrals to 3 paediatric endocrinologists."

Thank you! Had no idea about this.

Oh. Well thats not unverified in the slightest

& it's not much of a secret that Dr A is Dr Sam Hall.

This is rubbish too "based on information from an anonymous report". It's not an anonymous report it's the results following an investigation led by NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board with support from NHS England,

The GLP even name her https://goodlawproject.org/christian-right-targets-brighton-gp-treating-young-trans-people/

It's clear from the website that they have reported Dr Sam Hall & other doctors to the GMC.

A number of former and current clinicians at the WellBN Practice have been referred for the purpose of further professional investigation, both through their relevant independent professional regulator (the General Medical Council for medical professionals and the General Pharmaceutical Council for pharmacists) and / or through the NHS Professional Standards mechanism.

The investigation report has also been shared with CQC, who have suspended the WellBN Practice’s CQC rating while their own assessment of the provider is underway.

https://www.surreysussex.icb.nhs.uk/ipsi-wellbn-general-practice-brighton

Thanks for the link.

I agree that this should be criminal.

Unfortunately a finding that care "fell substantially below" accepted standards is not the same thing as proving a criminal offence.

In England and Wales, criminal liability generally requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil liability (such as medical negligence) only requires proof on the balance of probabilities, that something was more likely than not.
That difference matters enormously.

The report's findings may be highly relevant to GMC proceedings, NHS contractual action, CQC enforcement, and civil negligence claims. None of those require the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecution.

For a criminal case, prosecutors would need to prove not just poor practice but the elements of a specific offence.

If a patient had died and the death could be linked to the prescribing practices, prosecutors might examine gross negligence manslaughter. The threshold is extremely high: negligence must be so serious as to be truly "gross".

If there were evidence that clinicians knowingly ignored obvious risks or consciously disregarded their duties, prosecutors might consider offences of wilful neglect. Mere incompetence, poor judgment, or substandard practice is not enough.