Clinical engagement
The Review received a high level of clinical input in a variety of forms including listening sessions with individual clinicians and associated professionals, group events, roundtable meetings and workshops.
Dr Cass also delivered presentations, Q&As and discussion sessions with different professional groups at conferences or training sessions. This enabled the Review to engage directly with the wider clinical workforce, and helped the Review to better understand the dilemmas around clinical care. There were also regular meetings with the heads of relevant Royal Colleges and professional bodies who hold responsibility for professional leadership and workforce development.
Since the early stages of the Review, fortnightly meetings were established with clinical and managerial leads from Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), providing space to hold open conversations and discuss challenges and ideas. In addition, GIDS senior clinical staff have participated in workshops hosted by the Review and senior clinicians from GIDS sat on the Review’s Clinical Expert Group.
In addition to these activities, the Review undertook some structured engagement with clinicians.
Professional Panel (Primary and Secondary Care)
In autumn 2021, in order to understand the challenges and establish a picture of
competency, capacity and confidence among the workforce outside the specialist gender development service, an online professional panel was established to explore issues around gender identity services for children and young people.
The role of the panel was aimed at better comprehending how it looks and feels for
clinicians and other professionals working with these young people and to explore how the care of these children and young people can be better managed in the future.
The project was designed to capture a broad mix of professional views and experiences, recruiting from the professional groups that are most likely to have a role in the care pathway – GPs, paediatricians, child psychiatrists, child psychologists and child psychotherapists, nurses and social workers.
A total of 102 clinicians and other professionals were involved in the panel.
The panel represented a balanced professional mix, and participant ages and gender were broadly representative of the overall sector workforce. Participants were self-selecting and were recruited via healthcare professional networks and Royal Colleges.
Each week the panel was set an independent activity comprised of two or more tasks. Additionally, a sub-set of the panel was invited to participate in workshops at the midway and endpoint of the project. A summary report detailing the outputs of this work can be downloaded from the link below.
Gender specialists survey
Following the conclusion of the professional panel the Review undertook an online survey of gender specialists – clinicians and associated professionals who predominantly or exclusively work with children and young people who need support around their gender identity.
The survey contained some service specific questions, but also reflected and sought to test some of what the Review had heard from specialists through our listening sessions and from primary and secondary care professionals engaged in the professional panel activities.
The survey was conducted between 14 December 2021 and 16 January 2022. The survey link was sent by email to current staff working in the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). It was also circulated to a number of former GIDS clinicians who had previously been in touch with the Review.
A total of 33 responses were received from current and former gender specialists. While this is a relatively small sample, the quality and fullness of the responses received yielded valuable insight and feedback. A summary report detailing the outputs of this work can be downloaded from the link below.
Clinical Expert Group
A Clinical Expert Group was established to consider the strength of the evidence and
findings from the Review’s research programme, and assist the Review in achieving clinical consensus where evidence is not available or limited.
Membership included clinical experts on children and adolescents in relation to gender, development, physical and mental health, safeguarding and endocrinology.