Table 5 Order of discussion in both nominal groups (May and July 2018) and questions from the discussion about rejected competencies

The discussion took place in the following order:

1. Law and ethics competencies that did not reach consensus for purview (C1.1, C1.2, C1.8, C1.11, C1.17, C1.18)

2. Competencies in law and ethics that did not reach consensus for concordance (C1.5, C1.23)

3. Competencies in delivery and management of care that did not reach consensus for purview (C2.24, C2.47)

4. Competencies in delivery and management of care that did not reach consensus for concordance (C2.10, C2.22, C2.34, C2.36, C2.37, C2.46, C2.49, C2.50, C2.51, C2.54, C55)

5. Competency in delivery and management of care that did not reach consensus for purview or concordance (C2.29)

6. Competencies in professional development that did reach consensus for concordance (C3.3, C3.4, C3.7, C3.8, C3.9, C3.10, C3.11, C3.12, C3.14, C3.15, C3.17, C3.18, C3.19, C3.20)

Nominal Group

Format

Questions to start the discussion

Nominal group 1

(May 2018)

online

1. Why do you think these competencies had low consensus?

2. Do you agree with that outcome?

3. Justify your answers individually

4. Reach consensus with the group on a joint answer

Nominal group 2

(June 2018)

in person