Problems identified in gaining non-expert consensus for a hypothetical Wound Assessment Form

A post-hoc analysis was carried out of a session on a wound management diploma level module that was intended to promote understanding of the complexity of wound assessment. Postregistration student nurses (n = 16) from both hospital and community settings participated in brainstorming of categories (i.e. verbatim expression) they thought should be included in a hypothetical Wound Assessment Form (WAF). Ranking of suggested categories indicated in terms of 'votes' that the most important was 'date', and the least was 'factors affecting healing'. Some categories were rejected (e.g. exudate). Category definitions and rationale were checked after 3 weeks, and compared with those of lecturers in adult nursing (n = 16) to test whether similar themes emerged amongst other non-experts. Postregistration nurses and lecturers gave similar definitions and rationale for categories. A limitation of the study was that it was opportunistic and methodology for researching consensus issues had not been investigated. Views represent nurses in a wide spread of disciplines and have to date only been compared with expert consensus derived from published literature. Themes to emerge were: the importance of WAFs to record-keeping, different understanding of terminology and the monitoring of progress and use of intuition. It was concluded that the purpose of WAFs needs clarification and research should investigate how change in wounds could take account of differences of personal perception. A new method of charting progress or deterioration is being developed.