Thank you for submitting this paper. The role, skills and knowledge of ANPs is an important topic area. The rationale for this study needs strengthened and in particular the focus on discharge decision making. This is not in the tile and not justified in terms of being a key ANP/ED role. Knowledge mobilisation is an interesting concept but I am not clear of the relationship between setting this out the outset in the context of using an ethnographic approach. The methods are rather limited and don’t provide adequate information about sampling, recruitment and informed consent particularly in observation events. The paper alludes to a mix of purposive and theoretical sampling but this is not explained.
You justify the use of ethnography in order to provide ‘rich, contextual, in-depth understanding of the naturally occurring clinical Environment’ and this is the purpose of using such an approach. This does not come over in the findings as presented. As a reader I could not get a feel for the context in which the ANPs are working and the complexity of discharge decision making. In the introduction you identify the various education preparation of ANPs and that this is problematic. It is therefore important to explain this in the context of this study and participants. The ANP role has 4 pillars and whilst there is a focus on the clinical role this is not identified/justified. In the findings there is reference to knowledge gaps in comparison to medics and the roles ANPs are expected to carry out. In an ethnographic study I would expect a much more nuanced description of what this is and what it means in this context. Such a description would allow a more meaningful discussion of the findings and what these mean in the broader literature and conclusions relevant to developing and understanding the ANP role.

Thank you for addressing the reviewers comments and I can see you have worked through these. I did raise the issue of the 4 pillars of practice and you have added that the ANPs are working across all areas albeit less in research. I'm not sure your data justfy such a blanket claim given the complexity of each pillar of practice so in keeping with ethnographic research I would expect this to be more nuanced. If the focus is only clinical work then say so. You describe the ANPs as a homogenous group - is this so and on what basis? On reading the approach to sampling it seems to be purposive for each group and the inclusion of complex terms such as theoretical etc I don't think is justified. Some proof reading is required.

Thank you for for reviewing the feedback points. I remain unclear as to the basis on which some points are based. For example you state there are differences between ANPs and trainee ANPs. Whilst this is a reasonable assumption I can't see the evidence on which these claims are made. Similarly additional information around the the extent to which ANPs work to the 4 pillars of practice is rather general. Overall the analysis remains superficial and the nuance and detail expected of an ethnographic study is lacking. I don't think there is adequate consideration of knowledge and its meaning in a professional practice context.