GP says response to gender-care concerns forced her from NHS safeguarding role

Dr Sarah Redvers says she felt forced to leave her NHS safeguarding role after passing on other doctors’ concerns about gender-related care for young patients. She has brought a constructive dismissal claim against NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board and its former chief executive, Adam Doyle. The employment tribunal has heard the case but has not yet ruled.

Redvers, a GP whom colleagues could approach about vulnerable patients, told the BBC that she first raised concerns in 2020 after another doctor sought her advice about prescribing testosterone to an 18-year-old patient. She said further concerns followed about assessments, hormone prescribing and specialist supervision at WellBN, a Brighton GP practice where Dr Sam Hall worked.

Those early concerns were examined but not upheld, according to the BBC. NHS England said it was satisfied with Hall’s practice after the first investigation, and a second NHS investigation concluded there was no cause for concern. The General Medical Council did not take forward an investigation following a later referral by Redvers.

Hall complained to Doyle that Redvers was victimising him. The NHS then investigated Redvers. She described the questioning as “brutal” and said she felt that patient-safety issues had been lost. The BBC reported that a subsequent investigation recommended an apology to her and warned that her treatment could discourage staff from raising concerns. Redvers said she later felt unable to continue in the organisation.

A separate NHS patient-safety investigation reached sharply different conclusions about care at WellBN. Its findings, published in June 2026, said prescribing by some clinicians to children under 18 fell outside NHS-commissioned services and that potential harm had been caused to the 78 young people within its scope. The NHS identified shortcomings including a lack of specialist input and physical checks that were often not carried out. Potential harm does not mean that 78 cases of physical injury were established.

The later findings do not, by themselves, settle Redvers’ employment claim or show that acting on her earlier concerns would have prevented harm. An NHS account traces the safety investigation to further concerns and a prescribing-data review in 2024; it was commissioned in 2025. It has not been established whether patients in Redvers’ earlier referrals were among the 78 reviewed. In an account of his tribunal evidence published by journalist Nick Wallis, Doyle said he had known concerns were raised about Hall’s practice but was unsure of their outcome.

NHS Surrey and Sussex said some employment processes “should have been handled differently” and that it had apologised to Redvers. It said it would await the tribunal’s findings before commenting further. WellBN said in June that it recognised the seriousness of the safety investigation’s findings and would work with NHS partners and regulators, while maintaining that it continued to provide safe care.