An interesting and well presented paper that brings evidence of presciribng practices from Singapore. I enjoyed reading the article and finding out about prescribing practice in Singapore.

The article is well strucutred and cotains all key elements that are required,providing good detail on the methodology, methods and ratioanle for decisions that have been made. The study and methods are informed by work undertaken in Australia over 10 years ago.
Few minor recommendations outlined below
i) the paper focuses on collaboartive prescribing but does not provide defintions of other models of prescribing for nurses etc. that exist most notably in the UK and the similarities and differences between this independent prescribing, and supplementary prescrbiing.
ii) results consider the amount of time spent on different activities but its not clear if people were asked how much of the working week was spent on prescribing activitiy.So for example, 40% of a somone who prescribes infrequnelty does not mean the same as 40% of a frequent prescriber. This does need to be made clearer.
There is some inconsistency in the results presentation- some aspects just report % whereas others report numbers and %. A more consistent approach presenting both n & % is required throughout out.
3) Its not clear what if any consideration was given to examing differences btween the 2 groups of professionals and this may have uncovered more detail on the nuances of some of the questons.
3) The discussion draws heavily on work undertaken in Australia by Cashin (2014), greater consideration of the literature from other countries would strengthen this as the evidence is there to support a wider dicussion on some of the points that are presented, particularly in relation to identification of medication errors. The reliance on others to prevent errros is concerning- and warrants for consideration within the paper.

thank you for this improved version of the paper- all my queries have been addressed