The current GIDS Executive leadership team has been disbanded following the Keira Bell judgement and the Care Quality Commission’s inspection rating of ‘inadequate’ – the lowest a healthcare provider can receive from the Care Quality Commission. It means that a service is “performing badly.”
The most significant change announced is the recruitment of a range of clinical and operational experts from outside the service to deliver psychological treatment and therapy “for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions.” This is the service that should have been in place from the start and it is exactly what we have been campaigning for over the past five years. Finally children and young people will be receiving the mental health support they really need, which is good news, but it leaves us with a question.
How and why, over the last decade, have so many children been denied this treatment and instead had their bodies medically altered, leaving them with medically damaged bodies for life?
In this post we will try to answer this question.
The Care Quality Commission Inspection Report 2021
The CQC inspection report is truly shocking.
The inspection report exposes a shocking level of clinical negligence in the care of children and young people at the Tavistock that would be unacceptable for any service. But in the case of the GIDS, the reckless approach is particularly inexcusable given that, before the Keira Bell judgment, it preceded entering children into the medical experiment of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; life-changing medical intervention on healthy bodies, with life-long effects. No degree of carelessness is excusable under these circumstances.
The Care Quality Commission Inspection report reveals the extent to which children have been failed by a service based on ideology rather than evidence-based clinical good practice. When a service is belief-driven, normal rules of governance and clinical practice cease to apply.
CEO Paul Jenkins talks of being caught in a ‘political battleground’ in the video here. The truth is the GIDS caved to activist pressure in place of evidence-based clinical good practice long ago. Long waiting times cannot be used as an excuse for negligence.
The Inspection report is damning. Inspectors found:
- Staff did not always manage risk well. Many of the young people waiting for or receiving a service were vulnerable and at risk of self-harm. The size of the waiting list meant that staff were unable to proactively manage the risks to patients waiting for a first appointment.
- For those young people receiving a service, individual assessments were not always in place with plans for how to manage risks.
- Staff had not consistently recorded the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment before January 2020.
- Staff did not develop all-inclusive care plans for young people. Records of clinical sessions did not include any structured plans for care or further action.
- Staff did not 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.
- 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.
- records showed that the service may not have fully investigated or considered the needs of patients with autistic spectrum disorders.
The Care Quality Commission Inspection Report 2016
The current report begs the question: how was it possible that the Care Quality Commission Inspection report in 2016 awarded the GIDS a rating of ‘good’? All the failings documented in the current report must have been apparent in 2016. David Bell’s disturbing internal report was issued in 2018.
In fact we have evidence of the way the service approached its young referrals in 2016, through a Channel 4 documentary, Kids on the Edge: The Gender Clinic. In our report at the time we saw evidence of the ‘conversations’ referenced by the CQC report and we flagged concerns that children were being treated as adults fully capable of making informed decisions. In our recent re-visit to The Gender Clinic, in light of the Keira Bell judgment, Susan Matthews noted that well-known research-based evidence (in this case that the most likely outcome for a little boy exhibiting this kind of behaviour is homosexuality as an adult and that transsexual would be the least likely outcome) was not shared with the parents.
Could it be that the same ideology operating within the GIDS clouded the reality for the CQC too? The Care Quality Commission is a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme, as is the Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust. The Care Quality Commission gained entry into Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in 2015, placing at 94, up from 111 the previous year, but had been working with Stonewall since 2012. In 2014 The Care Quality Commission ran an in-house LGBT Role Models course with the help of Stonewall.
For evidence of the Stonewall ideological mind set within the CQC we don’t have to look very far.
The Care Quality Commission – Evidence of Ideological Capture
In the CQC guidance Relationships and sexuality in adult social care services Guidance for CQC inspection staff and registered adult social care providers there is a section called What is sexuality? This is their answer:
“Sexuality encompasses a person’s gender identity, body image and sexual desires and experiences.”
This section also includes a definition of ‘gender identity’:
“gender identity – the sense that we are male or female or not aligned with either gender.”
In a report on sexuality there is no mention of sex.
Even more revealing is the CQC publication Sexual Safety on Mental Health Wards (2018). In the Introduction there is this curious little sentence:
“We have done our best to be respectful and use appropriate language. The terminology in this area is constantly developing and evolving – as you read on, please bear in mind that it is not intended to cause upset or disrespect.”
Does this mean the language of sexual abuse or something else? The report contains a glossary of words you would expect to see in a publication of this nature but also includes, in top position, a definition incongruent in a report such as this:
“LGBT+: encompasses people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and all spectrums of sexuality and gender (including intersex and non-binary).”
The replacement of ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ is apparent in the language of the report, as in this section:
“Staff must behave in ways that ensure that patients feel supported and able to speak freely. This means that staff who know the patient must find the time to engage patients in regular one-to-one conversations. This should be carried out by a staff member of the same gender as the patient when requested or indicated.”
These are some of the findings of the report:
“Where we could determine the sex of the person who carried out the sexual incident, they were male in 495 reports and female in 153 reports.
In 328 of the reports, the sex of the person affected was not recorded. In the reports where sex was reported, females were more likely to be the person affected: 267 reports versus 229 reports where a male was the person affected.
For the females who were affected, 66% of the people who carried out sexual incidents were male, 16% female and in 18% the sex was not known. For the males who were affected, 61% of people who carried out sexual incidents were male, 17% female and in 21% the sex was unknown.
Most of the alleged incidents took place in communal areas (416 incidents).
For the great majority of the reports we could not determine with any certainty whether the ward admitted both men and women (mixed-sex) or was single-sex.”
To sum up the key findings: women are most at risk of sexual assault in mental health wards, the perpetrators are majority male in assaults on both sexes, and there are significant data gaps in the recording of sex, including whether the wards are mixed or single sex. Did the CQC address these serious failings in data collection and make recommendations for the protection of female patients, the most at-risk group?
In their recommendations it is acknowledged that:
“we do know that in two-thirds of cases where the report indicated that a female was the person affected, a man was alleged to be the person who carried out the incident.”
And yet “Healthcare professionals and representatives of arms-length bodies that we consulted with agreed that CQC should not simply recommend that all mental health wards become single-sex.”
More important to the CQC is ‘diversity’:
“The diversity on a mental health ward reflects the diversity of the country. It is important that the ward environment meets the needs of everyone – and does not make predetermined gender-based assumptions.”
The report found that women are the highest risk group for sexual assault and the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. There was no evidence that LGBT people are a high-risk group. Yet there is no reference to the need to respond to women’s legitimate fears, only to the needs of the ‘LGBT’ community:
“Respond to the needs of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or non-binary or who are transgender.”
Facts and evidence are irrelevant to people operating from a belief system. Beliefs can be irrational and illogical, it doesn’t matter to the true believer. Facts and evidence will simply not be seen, or will be denied in order to protect the belief. The Care Quality Commission report on Sexual Safety on Mental Health Wards provides a classic example of how this works: all the significant facts and evidence staring the CQC in the face were missed. The belief in gender ideology overrode the evidence in plain sight.
This is why we do not base clinical and medical care on beliefs. We base clinical and medical care on research, facts and evidence.
Going back to 2016, what plain facts and evidence did the CQC miss in their inspection report on the GIDS? This was a time before newspaper reports, Newsnight broadcasts and the Keira Bell judgment forced the evidence into the public realm. By 2021 the CQC could no longer ignore it.
We have had a decade where reality has left the room. Gender ideology has told us that male people are women, female people are men and children are mini adults. A medical and psychological experiment has been conducted on the children of this generation because adults in positions of responsibility over children’s welfare and safeguarding have submitted to a belief system imposed by a bullying, silencing and aggressive trans activist movement. Never before has a civil rights movement targeted children as this one has.
As evidence of a medical scandal continues to emerge, the Cass Inquiry is underway and we will have to await the findings. But what comes next must be a full Public Inquiry into how this medical experiment on children was ever allowed to begin.
Urgent questions need to be asked:
How this generation of children has been led to believe they can become the other sex by medical means.
How an NHS service has entered children into a medical experiment they know cannot achieve this aim.
How the NHS has been allowed to medically damage the healthy bodies of children and young people, leaving them medical patients for life.
How this has been allowed to happen in the absence of any evidence base.
How activists with no clinical or medical professional qualifications have been allowed to provide training and consultancy within the NHS.
How a bullying culture has been enabled and allowed to flourish within the medical profession so that professionals are afraid to speak out.
Lessons must be learned. Children have been damaged in service of an ideology. This must never be allowed to happen to our children again.