PONE-D-22-13514The resilient potential behaviours in an Internal Medicine Department: Application of Resilience Assessment GridPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Safi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jibril Mohammed, BSc, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This work was supported by the University Hospital of Southern Denmark as part of a Ph.D. project. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 22.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for sending me the manuscript entitled “The resilient potential behaviors in an Internal Medicine Department: Application of Resilience Assessment Grid” for review. The manuscript is well-written and well-organized. The following comments can help the authors to improve it.

1- In the abstract, the conclusion section needs to be revised.

2- It is better to remove Figures 1 and 2.

3- A sample of interview guideline and the questionnaire need to be presented as appendices.

4- Please add more information about the qualitative results’ trustworthiness.

5- In some parts of the manuscript the authors noted “health care professionals”. I think it is better to be more specific as for example, managers are not among healthcare professional.

6- Please present the strengths of the study first and then talk about the research limitations.

7- What will happen to the suggested quality improvement initiatives?

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Congratulations for the submission of paper entitled 'The resilient potential behaviours in an Internal Medicine Department: Application of Resilience Assessment Grid' to PLOS ONE. The organization resilience and its attempts to stay adaptive with challenging conditions while still maintaining/increasing the quality are critical issues nowadays. I appreciate the robust and systematic research methods including the questionnaire development. However, with the current form, I cannot recommend publication in the journal. I believe the authors should revise the paper substantially. There are some suggestions listed below for the authors to consider during revision:

1. Introduction

The elaboration on RAG and its importance within organization is quite good and easy to understand regardless the familiarity towards the topic. It is not clear to me, however, the gap analysis of this study. Why this study should be conducted? Why concerns in the internal medicine department in one teaching hospital should become concerns of the readers coming from different settings? Therefore, I recommend a stronger and clearer gap analysis elaborating what's not yet elaborated in the literature regarding this topic. Also, what are the research questions of this study? Despite the elaboration of the aim, clearer research questions are warranted to offer clear justification of the study. Further elaboration on the response or expected results of this study is also needed to give further insights on what the study would add in the literature.

2. Methods

The methods are described systematically. The setting which was explained in the introduction should be considered to be moved as the first section in the methods. The steps of instrument development are mostly well detailed. Yet, given issues in the introduction, the current stages are confusing. In addition, decisions on the method such as the exclusion of medical/nursing students, should be justified and explained. Each stage of study, including the delphi, the pilot of the instrument and so on should be better elaborated in terms of the data collection, sample, and the data analysis. I would expect better description on the thematic analysis being completed for the interview. I also wonder why there is no exploratory factor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis to support the construct of the instrument. Nor there was attempt to elaborate the reliability of the questionnaire - overall score, and subscale scores. I understand the value of reporting the mean score of each item as part of identifying the rooms for improvement in the system, however it is not clear to me why the subscale scores were not reported. Finally, at the presentation stage, I am quite confused with how was it done and how did this process add further data in this study? If so, how was it analyzed?

3. Results

The results are quite well written. Yet the clarity can be further enhanced by addressing the issues in the Methods section. All collected data be it qualitative and quantitative should be presented accurately and adequately.

4. Discussion and conclusion

The discussion is rather long. The authors may want to consider shortening the discussion section and focus more on comparing the results with the available and relevant literature as well as analyze the implications.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The resilient potential behaviours in an Internal Medicine Department: Application of Resilience Assessment Grid

PONE-D-22-13514R1

Dear Ms. Safi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jibril Mohammed, BSc, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: