Thank you for the opportunity to read such a high-quality and well-written paper, it was an absolute pleasure! A timely piece; the results richly describe the challenges associated with patient-centred bedside handovers in practice. I hope the authors go on to do more work in this space, with larger samples. My very minor feedback is below:
- “We aim to show that when this communication training is part of a tailored intervention that” consider changing language “we aim” initially makes the reader think this is the aim, when in fact the aim for the whole study is broader
- My main feedback is what to call the overarching study design. The pre-and post-data collection did follow qualitative design, but there appears to be an overarching design for this entire study. Pre-post study design? Integrated knowledge translation study (see Roberts et al 2019, Improving Nutrition Care, Delivery, and Intakes Among Hospitalised Patients: A Mixed Methods, Integrated Knowledge Translation Study. Nutrients). Or perhaps encased in a framework like: Hawkins J, Madden K, Fletcher A, et al. Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):689- 700. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8
- “phase 1 was the initial collection of data in the nominated ward;” could this be termed pre-intervention data? “initial” isn’t telling the reader much
- “The informational and interactional dimensions of the nursing handovers were analysed…” Is this paragraph now referring to the audio-recorded handover data? Perhaps add a signpost for the reader in the opening sentence.
- “Following the intervention, handovers routinely took place at the patient’s bedside rather than in the corridor.” Little quant data?
- The term “significant change” is used a few times in manuscript, it feels a little quantitative. Consider changing
- “In designing and implementing the project in this integrated way, changing communication in handover practices to focus on patient inclusion and risk identification became the impetus for nurses to embrace a ward culture that valued patient-centred care and patient safety.” A little lost with what risk identification referring to? Can it be more explicit?
- Abstract: “Methods: We conducted interviews with nursing, medical and allied health staff (n=14) and focus groups with nurses and students (n=13) in one hospital ward. We recorded handovers (n=16) and multidisciplinary team huddles (n=3).” Consider signpost this as Phase 1 or pre-intervention data.

Well done responding to reviewer comments.