Enhancing Patient Safety in Spain: Streamlining Adverse Event Detection in Occupational Healthcare Records

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

It is interesting to read your paper. Only after some necessary revisions can it be considered for publication. For each section of the manuscript, I have provided my comments in my review report.

Best regards

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to analyze adverse events in clinical records statistically. However, the manuscript is not well-structured and presented to give enough scientific contributions. For instance, several issues are listed below and must be addressed/improved.

1. The abstract is not formulated in an academic/scientific manner. It should fit into the regular format of an academic journal. 

2. The introduction section presents too much background information but lacks identifying current gaps/needs and how you can fill the gaps.

3. The Materials and Methods section can be reformated systematically. For instance, a flowchart helps illustrate the whole process of the method clearly.

4. The segmentation of the paragraphs in the result section and discussion section is too arbitrary. It lacks scientific insights from the results. It is hard to get what is the critical findings of this study.

5. The Conclusion section lacks main elements, such as the main findings of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Major revision of the English language is necessary.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you  for the opportunity to evaluate this well-written and methodologically clear manuscript. It deals with the important topic of  adverse events using the data of an occupational mutual Insurance company,

The study  is methodologically sound and the results are clear presented.
Therefore, there is only one comment for improvement: the publication is intended for a scientific journal. The term 'our company' is frequently used in the text. This direct relationship between authors and company should be replaced by a more neutral phrase. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the detailed response to my review comments by the authors, it appears that they have taken significant steps to address each point of criticism and have made substantial improvements to the manuscript. Here's a summary of the key revisions:

 

Title: The authors have revised the title to "Enhancing Patient Safety in Spain: Streamlining Adverse Event Detection in Occupational Healthcare Records," which is more concise and impactful, addressing the concerns about length and clarity.

 

Abstract and Keywords:

 

The background, methods, results, and conclusions sections have been revised for clarity and to include more context and detail.

Keywords have been updated to be more specific and relevant to the study.

Introduction:

 

The introduction has been revised to clearly articulate the research question and hypothesis.

It now provides a smoother transition between general adverse event information and specifics about MC MUTUAL.

Additional background information on the unique considerations for patient safety in occupational mutual insurance companies has been included.

Materials and Methods:

 

Expanded explanations for study design, sampling methods, statistical methods, and data protection measures have been provided.

Justifications for choosing qualitative and quantitative variables and adapting the NCCMERP Taxonomy have been clarified.

Results:

 

Statistical reporting inconsistencies have been addressed.

The presentation of pathologies and adverse events data has been clarified.

The integration of tables and references in the text has been improved.

Discussion:

 

The relationship between historical data and current findings, the impact of TTs, and the methodology behind using biased samples have been clarified.

The transition to broader patient safety issues and the practical applications of the findings have been smoothed out.

Conclusions:

 

A concise summary of the main findings has been added.

The implications for healthcare providers, insurers, and policymakers have been outlined.

Future directions for research and practice have been suggested, along with a compelling call to action.

References:

Updated to include relevant studies, providing more context and supporting the study's position within the existing body of knowledge.

 

Given these comprehensive revisions, it seems that the authors have addressed my initial concerns thoroughly. The changes align with my expectations and standards for the publication, Thus  I would consider accepting the manuscript. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper quality has been improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript.