BackgroundThere are few areas of health care where sufficient research-based evidence exists and primary health care is no exception. In the absence of such evidence, the development of assisted support must be based on the opinions and experience of professionals with knowledge of the relevant field. The purpose of this research project is to explore how the nominal group technique can be used to establish consensus by analysing how it supported the development of structured, knowledge-based, electronic health records for preventive child health examinations in Danish general practice.MethodsWe convened an expert panel of five general practitioners with a special interest in the preventive child health examinations. We introduced the panel to the nominal group technique, a well-established, structured, multistep, facilitated, group meeting technique used to generate consensus. The panel used the technique to agree on the key clinical and socioeconomic themes to include in new electronic records for the seven preventive child health examinations in Denmark. The panel met three times over a four-month period between 2013 and 2014 and their meetings lasted between two-and-a-half and five hours.Results1) The structured and stepwise process of the nominal group technique supported our expert panel’s focus as well as their equal opportunities to speak. 2) The method’s flexibility enabled participants to work as a group and in pairs to discuss and refine thematic classifications. 3) Serial meetings supported continual evaluation, critical reflection, and knowledge searches, enabling our panel to produce a template that could be adapted for all seven preventive child health examinations.ConclusionThe nominal group technique proved to be a useful method for reaching consensus by identifying key quality markers for use in daily clinical practice. Our study focused on the development of content and a layout for systematic, knowledge-based, electronic health records. We recommend the method as a suitable working tool for dealing with complex questions in general practice or similar settings, and we present and discuss modifications to the original model.

Developmental surveillance programmes vary greatly and their structure appears to be driven by historical factors as much as by evidence. Consensus should be reached about which surveillance activities constitute screening, and the predictive validity of these components needs to be established and judged against World Health Organization screening criteria. Costs and consequences of specific programmes should be assessed, and the issue of inter-professional communication about children at remediable developmental risk should be prioritised.

The GP is used to observe and reflect on what happens in the consultation room. The GP might benefit from a systematic attention to the contextual issues. The GPs are frontline workers; they need a good dialogue with the experts and relevant supervision from them to meet the challenge of recognising children in need. It takes more than insight and will from the professionals, it requires a socio-political and socio-economic effort.

The study indicates that through open reflective dialogue the GP is able to assess the child and strengthen mutual trust in the doctor-parent relationship to the benefit of children with special needs.

No abstract