How paediatricians investigate early developmental impairment in the UK: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND: Early developmental impairment (EDI) is common and has many aetiologies and, therefore, potential investigations. There are several published guidelines recommending aetiological investigations, and paediatricians’ views of them varies. Little is known on the thought processes underlying clinical decisions in investigating EDI. This study aimed to describe the thought processes affecting clinical decisions on the investigation of EDI within a nationalised health care system. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured qualitative interviews performed in person or via video link with paediatricians who see children with EDI in England. As part of the interview, a case study of a fictional disease, Cavorite deficiency, modelled on biotinidase deficiency, was given to participants with the cost of testing, incidence and likelihood it would respond to treatment. This allowed exploration of cost without encumbrance from predisposing views and training on the condition. Thematic analysis was performed by iterative approach. Where participants stated they wanted to redirect money from investigations to treatment, were that even possible, we asked which services they would like to be better funded in their area. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 14 consultant paediatricians: 9 Community / Neurodisability, 2 General paediatricians, and 3 Paediatric Neurologists. Two themes were identified: the value of an aetiological diagnosis to families and managing risk and probability when investigating EDI. The latter contained 4 subthemes: ‘circumspection’ involved blanket investigations chosen irrespective of phenotype and high regard for guidelines; ‘accepting appropriate risk’ involved participants choosing investigations based on clinical phenotype, recognising some aetiologies would be missed; consultants found they ‘transitioned between practices’ during their career; and ‘improved practice’ was thought possible with better evidence on how to stratify investigations based on phenotype. Services that were most frequently reported to need additional funding were therapy services, early community developmental services, management of behaviour, sleep and mental health, and educational support. CONCLUSIONS: There are many factors that influence paediatricians’ choice of aetiological investigation in EDI, but clinical factors are the most important. Paediatricians want better evidence to allow them to select the right investigations for each child without a significant risk of missing an important diagnosis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03233-1.