Skip to content
Contents

GIDS Cass Review: Audit on Characteristics of 40 Detransitioned Patients

Reference: 24-25152

Date response sent: 07/08/2024

Details of enquiry

  1. the review that your colleague Dr Andrew Davies did of former Tavistock and Portman trust GIDS patients who subsequently decided to detransition?
  2. all correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls) between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and Dr Hilary Cass and members of her review team about Dr Davies’s review?
  3. all correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls) between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and NHS England about Dr Davies’s review?
  4. and all correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls (between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and the Department of Health and Social Care about Dr Davies’s review?

Response sent

  1. the review that your colleague Dr Andrew Davies did of former Tavistock and Portman trust GIDS patients who subsequently decided to detransition?

The Trust confirms that it holds this document.

The Trust is withholding the audit report in its entirety due to the nature and level of personal details contained within it and has engaged exemption 40(2) of FOIA – information which constitutes the personal data of others, where it would not be permitted under the Data Protection Act 2018. This is an absolute exemption and does not require the public interest test.

The two sample groups of patients within scope of the audit groups were small, at 21 and 42 patients respectively, thus increasing the likelihood of some or all personal characteristics and circumstances of individuals being recognizable by the patients themselves and/or others. The Trust are of the view that redacting or masking of these characteristics and details would not ensure the patients right to confidentiality.

The Trust is of the opinion that these small numbers render the identification of patients highly likely by others who would have heard/read about them, and that such a disclosure was likely to cause significant distress and anguish to this group of patients, should they recognize themselves during, what would have been, a stressful and vulnerable period in their lives.

The Trust therefore confirms that it is withholding the audit based on its engagement of the exemption set out in section 40(2) of FOIA – information which constitutes the personal data of others, where it would not be permitted under the Data Protection Act 2018.  This exemption is absolute and does not require the public interest test.

  1. all correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls) between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and Dr Hilary Cass and members of her review team about Dr Davies’s review?

The Trust did not hold any relevant documentation at the time the request was received.

Whilst sourcing data for this response, we became aware of another paper – volunteered to us by Dr Davis and which had been written by him, a brief overview of insights into detransition.  He had shared this paper with Dr Cass and another clinician, specialising in gender.  The Trust had no prior knowledge of its existence.

We also now understand, from this sourcing activity, that Dr Davies attended meetings with Dr Cass, her team and other/s in a personal capacity.  The Trust was not, at the time, aware of any of these meetings either – which Dr Davies has advised us were arranged from own private and personal email account.   .

Accordingly, the Trust considers this information to be Dr Davies’ own intellectual and personal data, which would therefore be exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA.  This exemption covers personal information about third parties and where complying with the request would contravene the  UK General Protection Regulation or the Data Protection Act 2018.   Section 40 is an absolute exemption that does not require the authority to carry out the public interest test.

Furthermore, as the brief overview of insights into detransition paper was provided to us after your request was received, it is not, on this occasion, covered under FOIA 2000

  1. all correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls) between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and NHS England about Dr Davies’s review?

The Trust confirms that this data is not held.

  1. All correspondence (emails, letters and notes of phonecalls (between the Tavistock and Portman Trust and the Department of Health and Social Care about Dr Davies’s review?

The Trust confirms that this data is not held.

Back to top