A child's difficulties can overlap, be concealed by ability or support, and change across settings and over time. Good assessment needs a process that makes important evidence harder to miss—and explains what the findings mean for help now.
We propose published, accessible steps with a concise written account of the reasoning, decisions, responsibilities and review. Complexity and service pressure make safeguards necessary. They do not excuse ignored evidence, unexplained refusal of support or failure to reconsider an ineffective approach.
This is an editorial proposal for review, building on existing guidance and the site's P1/P3 programme. It is not an adopted Greek pathway, a diagnostic instrument or a validated checklist. The assessing service owns integration and documentation; families contribute their knowledge.
Seven steps everyone can understand
The checklist examines whether the work and reasoning happened. It does not score symptoms or prescribe identical tests for every child. Condition-specific assessment and professional responsibilities still apply.
| Step | A useful written output | Who carries the work |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Agree the questions | The child's and adults' concerns, priorities, participation difficulties and immediate support or safety needs; identify whose account each is. | The assessor hears the child and relevant adults in accessible ways; a service contact confirms the next steps. |
| 2. Connect the history | A brief timeline using existing records: what changed, what was tried, its effects and the information still missing. | The service gathers and integrates relevant records, with appropriate consent; families and schools contribute without rebuilding the whole file. |
| 3. Compare settings | What agrees or differs between home, school and appointments; assistance, effort and demands; what further observation is needed. | The assessor arranges clarification or relevant observation and names who will provide it. |
| 4. Test the explanations | The basis for the working explanation, what does not fit, overlapping needs or alternatives considered, and reasons for any further referral. | Appropriately qualified professionals assess within their competence and bring in other expertise where needed. |
| 5. Explain the findings | Abilities, needs, conclusions and reasons; uncertainty, unanswered questions and differing views, whether or not a diagnosis is reached. | An identified professional authors the integrated account and discusses it accessibly with the child and family. |
| 6. Agree support now | Actions, intended benefits, responsible people and dates; reasons for deferred or declined help, alternatives and interim arrangements. | Each provider owns its action; the coordinator connects the plan and flags gaps that remain unresolved. |
| 7. Review the result | A review date, triggers for earlier review, the child's experience, outcomes to check and changes made with reasons. | The service arranges review with relevant contributors and ensures that an uncompleted action has an owner. |
Record each step as completed, pending or not applicable, with a reason and next action where needed. A tick is not evidence of a sound assessment. A stack of reports is not an integrated explanation. A review date must lead to a review.
What comes from guidance, and what we propose
| Basis | What it establishes here |
|---|---|
| Established recommendations | NICE's autism and ADHD guidance addresses assessment from several sources, wider needs, explanation and continuing care. Scotland's neurodevelopmental specification provides a broader service model across conditions.123 |
| Greek requirements and routes | Clinical assessment, educational assessment and funded provision have different purposes and procedures. The applicable instrument, professional remit and current local process need checking. Foreign guidance does not create a Greek legal duty. |
| Our proposal | The seven-step presentation, shared written outputs and accountability checks above are our synthesis for public and professional review. They require Greek clinical, educational and legal appraisal and a bounded usability pilot before any claim of validation or adoption. |
This develops P1: coordinated assessment and P3: an integrated written account, alongside professional competence and correction, continuing reassessment and participation in P6, P7 and P9. It does not invent another diagnostic category or require families to collect diagnoses until someone agrees with them.
The service owns the combined account
Give the family a readable summary, an identified author, a date and a contact for unresolved questions. Use existing information rather than repeatedly requesting the same history. Share the information needed for action through appropriate consent and lawful processes, not an indiscriminate circulation of every clinical detail.
The record should distinguish what was observed, what someone reported and the professional's interpretation. Provide a route to correct factual errors and preserve disagreement without making agreement a condition of support. The child's communication should influence goals and arrangements, including when it challenges adult assumptions.
If a plan did not help, investigate its fit, implementation, surrounding demands and possible additional needs. Doctors and other professionals should explain when an earlier judgement was incomplete or harmful and what is being corrected. Parents must not become the only people noticing that separate recommendations conflict.
How each participant can use the proposal
Families: ask for the missing answer, not another full dossier
Bring the concerns that matter most, a few relevant observations and references to existing reports. Ask what remains unexplained and who will integrate the findings. Request accessible communication and practical help with participation where needed. You are not responsible for choosing diagnostic tests, reconciling professional opinions or chasing every handoff yourself.
Assessing professionals: make the reasoning inspectable
Set out the questions and limits of your assessment. Examine contradictory evidence and co-occurring needs within your competence; seek relevant expertise rather than make every observation fit one explanation. Make the useful conclusions understandable to the people carrying out the plan. State uncertainty and what would change your judgement.
Schools and therapists: connect observations to action
Describe the task, setting, assistance and child's experience. Identify what you can change now and what requires another decision. Return information on whether the change helped, including effects on participation and wellbeing as well as behaviour or output. A clinically useful account and an educational support decision are related but different products.
Service leaders: provide the time and responsibility
Publish who does what, assign coordination, protect time for integration and review, and provide a way to raise omissions. Examine unanswered requests, uncompleted actions and repeated transfers. Separate clinical decisions from staffing and funding constraints. Audit whether the work changed support, not simply whether a form was completed.
From a website proposal to better practice
Develop and appraise the process with children through accessible participation, families, developmental specialists, child psychologists, other relevant clinicians, schools and service leaders. Test whether the summary is understood, reduces repetition, identifies omissions and leads to completed actions. Measure the work it requires and who carries it.
Those are proposed next stages, not an existing partnership or pilot. Adoption needs training, capacity and accountability as well as a published document. Meanwhile, the questions can support a better discussion today, and the immediate-help guide provides practical recourse when the response is inadequate.
Sources and limits
- NICE CG128 — Autism: recognition, referral and diagnosis; recommendations 1.2, 1.4–1.6 and 1.8 ↩
- NICE NG87 — ADHD: diagnosis and management; recommendations 1.3–1.5 ↩
- Scottish Government (2021) — National neurodevelopmental specification: principles and standards of care ↩
NICE CG128: recognition, assessment, uncertainty/review and communication of findings (§§1.2, 1.4.8, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8). NICE NG87: assessment and shared care (§§1.3–1.5). Scottish specification: cumulative needs and coordinated support (Appendix 1). Relevant passages were checked; this is not a full appraisal of every guideline's evidence or a clinical endorsement of this synthesis.