Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The authors clearly built the case in the introduction and described the problem in the literature. In the final paragraph of the introduction they state the aim or objective of the study.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Throughout the discussion section, the authors thoroughly interpreted the results without overreaching in terms inference. The inclusion of the study limitations is itself good practice as they acknowledge that there are certain conclusions that can't be made from their results alone. They also make recommendations on how to strengthen future studies.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The study explores a subject that is underexplored especially in Australia. The findings significantly contribute to the growing body of knowledge. Redesign methods are not extensively explored as most healthcare practices are based on established protocols (from translational research) and the findings of the study show that redesign methods are actually effective and worth considering in health systems improvement.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Generally, the language the consistent with scientific writing principles. However, there are three typos that were noted: 1) in section 3:1 the authors write "throughput" which we think they meant "throughout", 2) they must review the introduction section for a typo identified (review team lost it in the process) and 3) BIMIC on table 1 in the results section.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

We would like to commend the authors for the great work they have done and especially upholding the open science principles. Notably, they provide the ethical approval reference number and explain what information is available upon request for ethical reasons, which is good practice. However, there are three things worth pointing out about this research. Firstly, the authors cite Appendices A and B in chapter 2 on the overview of the TMOC and BIMOC but they do not appear in the paper. Second, in the methodology there is no justification of the choice of the study period (2022 to 2025 from 2016 to 2017). They do not explain why they started the data collection for the BIMOC from 2022 data. However, they explain in the results that the BIMOC was implemented in 2018 but still do not clearly explain the choice of 2022 as a starting point. This could be better placed in the methodology section just when the study period is introduced. Finally, the authors did not note the possible confounding factor by time and the Covid-19 pandemic (2016 to 2017 vs 2022 to 2025).

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.