The Family’s Contribution to Patient Safety
, Maria Manuela Martins 1,2,4, Fernando Barroso 5, Lara Pinho 6,7, João Longo 8,9 and Olga Valentim 2,8,10
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for your work.
The manuscript with the aim to analyse, based on the nurses' speeches, the advantages, and disadvantages of the family's presence in hospitals for the safety of hospitalized patients is on an interesting and relevant theme for scientific community, for patients, and for clinical practice.
To know the advantages and disadvantages of family presence in hospital is a great contribute to clinical practice because add arguments to the discussion about this presence. This qualitative study contributes to know in depth what the professionals think about the presence of the family disclosing future research areas.
The manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented in a well-structured manner.
Most references are within the last 5 years.
The method is in line with the aim. The authors need to add information about the interview process: how the interviews were recorded, how long they lasted, how they were coded
One table (table 1) is not necessary to understand the data. The other figures are important.
The discussion and the conclusion are ok.
The English needs a proofread.
Abstract: Ln 25 – the words “as a safety” are repeated
Introduction: p.2 - the legend of Figure 1 needs to be changed to English language
Methods: p.3 - exclude table 1, all information are in the text
Results: remove (-) of Figure 2, is repeated.
Discussion: p. 6 Ln 219 – authors use the same unit of record to exemplify two different categories “Family not complying with nursing recommendations” and “Risk of falling”, it is correct not to use the same record in different categories.
P 6 Ln 231 - the comma is repeated (In this sense, , training…)
P 7 Ln 249 the correct name is “sterillium”.
P 7 Ln 274 correct the sentence – “after hospital discharge” is repeated.
References: p 9 reference 4 "2018" is repeated.
Author Response
First of all thank you for acknowledging and reviewing this article, your comments contribute to the improvement of this work.
Point 1:. Abstract: Ln 25 – the words “as a safety” are repeated
Response 1: Elimination of repeated words according to the above.
Point 2:. Introduction: p.2 - the legend of Figure 1 needs to be changed to English language
Response 2: We thank you for the repair. Changed to English language.
Point 3:. Methods: p.3 - exclude table 1, all information are in the text
Response 3: The table has been removed.
Point 4:. Results: remove (-) of Figure 2, is repeated.
Response 4: Amendment made as indicated.
Point 5:. Discussion: p. 6 Ln 219 – authors use the same unit of record to exemplify two different categories “Family not complying with nursing recommendations” and “Risk of falling”, it is correct not to use the same record in different categories.
Response 5: Thank you for the repair. We have changed the quote from the Falling Risk category to: " ... we trust the relatives explaining ... we lower the railing, but we always tell them before they leave to ring the bell or let us know they're leaving so we can raise the railing again. And fortunately it has happened few times but unfortunately it happens, the relative has gone and the bed rail has been left down with the risks associated with that." (E8)
Point 6:. P 6 Ln 231 - the comma is repeated (In this sense, , training…)
Response 6: We thank you for the repair. Amendment made as indicated.
Point 7:. P 7 Ln 249 the correct name is “sterillium”.
Response 7: Once again we thank you for indicating the correction, which has been made.
Point 8:. P 7 Ln 274 correct the sentence – “after hospital discharge” is repeated.
Response 8: Elimination of repeated words according to the above.
Point 9:. References: p 9 reference 4 "2018" is repeated.
Response 9: They are different references. One is an online page, the other is a recommendations document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research explores an important topic, useful especially after the past few years of pandemics. Below are some revisions that in the my opinion need to be made:
1) editorial aspects: use the guidelines (e.g. line 53/54 fig.1)
2) methodology: make explicit the categorisation criteria and any methodological references for content analysis; make explicit the methodological and generalisation limits of the research, with reference to the number of respondents and their selection;
3) Describe what other research scenarios and application of the results can be defined. I suggest follow contribute:
Turchi, G. P., (2022). A contribution towards health. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28(5), 717.
Author Response
First of all we would like to thank you for your comments as they provide an opportunity for improvement.
Point 1:. 1) editorial aspects: use the guidelines (e.g. line 53/54 fig.1)
Response 1: Thank you for the indication. Corrections were made according to the magazine's guidelines.
Point 2:. 2) methodology: make explicit the categorisation criteria and any methodological references for content analysis; make explicit the methodological and generalisation limits of the research, with reference to the number of respondents and their selection;
Response 2: Added the following information in line with the recommendation:
“In this categorisation process we considered the semantic criterion.”
Lines 140-142: “Due to the nature of the study, sample size, sampling methodology and the origin of the participants in a single country, limitations to the generalizability of the results presented are acknowledged.”
Point 3:. 3) Describe what other research scenarios and application of the results can be defined. I suggest follow contribute:
Turchi, G. P., (2022). A contribution towards health. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28(5), 717.
Response 3: Added the following information in line with the recommendation: “It is therefore suggested that this study be replicated in other care and cultural realities.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very important subject area and the nursing perspective here is extremely valuable as nurses are often the primary "face" of the healthcare system to the patient and family. The english usage in the paper could be improved with some editing an minor word changes and would significantly increase the readability and impact of the paper. The biggest limitation of the paper is its size and the limited scope of the sample - even though saturation was reached - it is a single country study in a very limited number of facilities - this however, does not decrease the value of the conclusions - but should be mentioned in the limitations section.
The conclusions need to state clearly that this was a study of the perceptions of nurses and the the significance of the findings are based solely on that. It is an opinion piece even though the approach to obtaining data was scientific - that should be stated at the beginning of the paper.
Author Response
First of all thank you for acknowledging and reviewing this article, your comments contribute to the improvement of this work.
Point 1:. This is a very important subject area and the nursing perspective here is extremely valuable as nurses are often the primary "face" of the healthcare system to the patient and family. The english usage in the paper could be improved with some editing an minor word changes and would significantly increase the readability and impact of the paper. The biggest limitation of the paper is its size and the limited scope of the sample - even though saturation was reached - it is a single country study in a very limited number of facilities - this however, does not decrease the value of the conclusions - but should be mentioned in the limitations section.
Response 1: Added the following information in line with the recommendation:
Lines 140-142: “Due to the nature of the study, sample size, sampling methodology and the origin of the participants in a single country, limitations to the generalizability of the results presented are acknowledged.”
Phrasing corrections have been made.
Point 2:. The conclusions need to state clearly that this was a study of the perceptions of nurses and the the significance of the findings are based solely on that. It is an opinion piece even though the approach to obtaining data was scientific - that should be stated at the beginning of the paper;
Response 2: Added the following information in line with the recommendation:
“The results of this study are based on the perceptions of the participating nurses, whose data were processed using scientific methodology.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
