That was the response to the investigation by the Gender Identity Development service, which is the national specialist service.
It was echoed by the Multi-Professional Review Group:
"the Multi-Professional Review Group (MPRG),
set up by NHS England to ensure
that procedures for assessment and for
informed consent have been properly
followed, has stated that the following areas
require consideration:
â—Ź From the point of entry to GIDS there
appears to be predominantly an
affirmative, non-exploratory approach,
often driven by child and parent
expectations and the extent of social
transition that has developed due to the
delay in service provision.
â—Ź From documentation provided to the
MPRG, there does not appear to be a
standardised approach to assessment or
progression through the process, which
leads to potential gaps in necessary
evidence and a lack of clarity.
â—Ź There is limited evidence of mental
health or neurodevelopmental
assessments being routinely
documented, or of a discipline of formal
diagnostic or psychological formulation.
"
Many of those issues were previously reported by the Care Quality Commission in 2020, as well.
See the quotes above. The parents and children pressure the doctors, and many of the responding physicians, staff, and researchers, responded to the investigation that they feared censure or retribution if they raised objections.
The investigation team included physicians, and data scientists.
Data Scientists, Statisticians and Mathematicians are the ones that assess if the results and methodologies of all other academic research are sufficient for the findings to qualify as evidence, or are flawed in their methodology, significant, or not significant statistically, etc.
The purpose of the Data Scientists, Statisticians and Mathematicians, is precisely to point out, when someone is passing off flim flam as if it was evidence, when it is not sufficient to qualify as reliable evidence.
