Table 3. Degree of consensus reached after each round.
| Round 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Delphi statement no. | Statement | Level of consensus % (n = cases) |
| 1 | In your opinion, the GP referral details were comprehensive and complete. | 28.3% (17/60) |
| 2 | In your opinion, the level of information from the nurse-led clinic was sufficient to make an effective clinical assessment. | 100% (60/60) |
| 3 | In your opinion, the management plan by the UNP was appropriate. | 53.3% (32/60) Discordance 46.6% (28/60) |
| 4a | In your opinion, would the management plan for this patient have been done, by a non-specialist urologist. | 71.6% (43/60) (same) 3.3% (2/60) (better) Discordance 25% (15/60) |
| 4b | In your opinion, would the management plan for this patient have been done, by a consultant urologist specialising in prostate cancer. | 73.3% (44/60) (same) 1.6% (1/60) (better) 25% (15/60) discordance |
| Round 2 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Delphi statement No. | Statement | Level of consensus % (n = cases) |
| 3 | In your opinion, the management plan by the UNP was appropriate. | 86.7% (52/60) 10% (6/60) minor errors Not affecting patient care. 3.3% (2/60) Inappropriate with errors potentially significantly affecting patient care. |
| 4a | In your opinion, would the management plan for this patient have been done, by a non-specialist urologist. |
83.3% (50/60) same 8.3% (5/60) better 8.3% (5/60) worse |