Dear authors,

Many thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript, a methodologically interesting experience about knowledge mobilisation in ANPs. The following suggestions are offered with the aim of clarifying the manuscript for the readers of JAN.

The manuscript is clearly presented, with a cohesive integration of the data collection approaches employed. Perhaps the authors would consider a critical revision of the word count, as some sections of the paper are slightly iterative and lengthy, disallowing them to expand the Results and, more importantly, the Discussion section. An example of an 'overgrown' section would be the ANP role development in the Background. After all, the key is about how these professionals use knowledge, and how they access it, and it is accessory that their training and roles are mismatched, which leads to knowledge gaps that need filling.

I found the manuscript confusing when reflecting upon the different types of knowledge amenable to be used, and the definition of 'shortcuts' used by the authors. In terms of knowledge, pg 5 lines 8-23 mentions formal and informal knowledge, yet the emphasis of that paragraph is on formal and there is much less about informal mechanisms. This is important, as the experiential knowledge presented later on among the themes is underpinned by hands-on, on the fly, advice provided by other colleagues.

Additionally, I kept going to the definition of KM proposed by the authors were they mentioned that it is the "movement of knowledge to where it can be most useful" - how does that definition fit in the themes that the authors propose?

Re: shortcuts (pg 6, line 35-38), I really do not understand what the authors mean. When I first scanned the paper, I thought the authors were aligned with the heuristics narrative, but a more detailed reading suggested that the authors are really referring to "sources" of knowledge. To support this idea, I really would like to understand the difference between a guideline accessed on the ward computer and the same guideline accessed via the smartphone, as an app or website. This difference is not really clear.

Further, what would be the difference between informal knowledge, and learning from colleagues? Why would learning from colleagues be a 'shortcut'?

I also thought that the authors had to deal with a dilemma; on the one hand, they suggest that clinicians engage in the use of midlines and do not really use guidelines (pg 6, line 37). Yet, later on, the paper proposes "guidelines which are easily accesible" (pg 16, line 60).

I was surprised to see very limited reflection about the structural determinants of the situation. The authors highlight a potential lack of resources, lack of awareness among certain professionals, and institutional expectations about the care gap to be met by the roles, as well as the tacit support to the use of apps.

Sample recruitment: One of the limitations worth highlighting woudl be the potential for coertion. Although the authors noted that nurse consultant and manager inviting participants to the study emphasised the voluntary nature, the potential for them to feel that they had to take part is worth noting.

Anonimisation: Equally, the minimal number of participants (5) can lead to them being identified once the paper is published.

I admit that I struggled to see the transition from "competition for computers", "lengthy guidelines" and "inteprofessional confluct" to "mess and complexity". The subthemes seem fairly descriptive, in view of the quotes offered, and there ambiguous role and the negotiation of boundaries for ANPs, much more interesting, appears quite modestly.

Additionally, it was interesting to think that the solution created by the ANPs of using apps could in itself lead to more messiness, ambiguity and framgmentation, as suggested by the safety concerns about the clinical governace of the use of such apps.

Finally, the definition of "indeterminate knowledge" really needs to be explicit.

In terms of underpinning evidence, I felt there was an over-reliance on Gabbays work, and would have liked to see some evidence about the criticisms to the mindlines concept, perhaps linked to the criticisms to evidence-informed pratice. Equally, it would have been positive to see how the evidence obtained from the study differ from Gabbays.

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the opportunity to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript. You have further clarified the themes and general findings in the paper, and I thank you for the effort and consideration given to the recommendations.

I admit the narrative about apps as shortcuts remains a bit recursive and, as mentioned, superficial. Apps are developed so clinical evidence is easily accessible, so then it is probably not a surprise if clinicians use them as they enable easy access to such evidence.

The thematic analysis, even with the additions, remains superficial. The mess and complexity of sources of knowledge does not include in my opinion an adequate justification of the "messiness", and they list several sources which are inherent to clinical practice as an example of complexity. What would be the alternative? Are these sources of clinical information any less "complex" for other professionals? Are they contradictory? I find this section unsatisfactory. Moreover, theme 1 is really focused on the contextual issues including boundaries, but these are not closely linked to the knowledge mobilisation aspect. What I read is "ACPs are not trained to the level of the clinicians they substitute under the perspective of their employing organisations, yet they make similar decisions, which leaves them stressed". OK. Such (summarised) narrative has long appeared in the ACP literature.

The paper offers some added clarification about some of the terminology, but I wonder if it would be fair to say that "indeterminate knowledge" = experience? However, I then find other sentences which could be further clarified. For example, pg 9 (end) says "...up to date, evidence based shortcuts", but if I apply the definition of shortcut used by the authors, the sentence means ".up to date, evidence based ways in which knowledge is accessed", which makes me wonder if really the authors intended to say that.

Two further comment remain re: the previous round of suggestions which have not been in my opinion adequately considered:
- Coercion: The informed consent would not have prevented participants from enrolling if they had been approached by a senior figure/manager. The coercion is potentially related to the fact that someone is approached by their manager with information to participate in the research. In other words, is it plausible the participants felt compelled to take part in the study because the manager was involved?
- Anonymisation: Again, the setting and participants could be anonymised in the paper, but the small number of those participants may be enough for them to read the paper and, potentially, draw conclusions about the opinions expressed by other participants. The paper will be published with the authorship, etc

Dear authors,

Many thanks for considering the suggestions and recommendations offered.

Regards