PONE-D-21-35377What is the scope of teaching and training of undergraduate students and trainees in Point of Care Testing in UK universities and hospital laboratories?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. PETERS,

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.

==============================

One of the reviewers did not recommend publishing this article. I do however feel that there is merit in this very important topic. Please can you ensure that you complete the corrections. Specifically, while this is primarily about the UK experience, there should be some reference to other settings where POCT has been conducted particularly in view of the small numbers included

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 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,

Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D.

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. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed, (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee and (3) If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. 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 4 and 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

One of the reviewers did not recommend publishing this article. I do however feel that there is merit in this very important topic. Please can you ensure that you complete the corrections. Specifically, while this is primarily about the UK experience, there should be some reference to other settings where POCT has been conducted particularly in view of the small numbers included.

[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: I Don't Know

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: Yes

**********

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: The authors need to clarify if the data (training hours for point of care training) was skewed or normal distributed to determine whether mean (SD) (normal distributed) or median (IQR)(skewed data) should be reported.

Reviewer #2: Overall: This is an interesting paper describing how much POCT teaching is being done in the UK universities and pathology departments.However, samples size may be insufficient to come to conclusions. Also, consider additional discussion on how the findings relate to other similar studies. You may consider reducing the introduction section.

Title

Consider writing UK in full.

Abstract

Line 19: How many NHS hospital pathology departments responded (rate in %) vs. non-responders?

Line 21: Write “12” as Twelve of degree………

Line 23: Is this teaching hours per week, month, year or per course? Authors should clarify.

Line 31: Write QAA in full, then abbreviate thereafter.

Introduction

Line 59-64: This paragraph has no reference.

Line 74: Author should insert the reference number 9 or alternative.

Figure 1: Please label as such and include heading.

Line 103: ……… accreditation post 2019 will have to evidence how they meet the new benchmark statement. Missing phrase

Methods

Authors should clarify why they did not use the similar freedom of information requests to both UK universities and pathology departments.

Results

Authors reported means of the hours of POCT teaching. Reporting standard deviation with means will be helpful.

Line 298: Please provide the statistical reasoning for the use of the maximum value when the range of hours was provided.

Line 3: The ‘below’ should be removed. It implies the figure comes after the paragraph. Also, figure 3 is not labelled adequately. One or two sentences explaining the content of the figure will be helpful.

Discussion

Line 355-363. Results of the surveys are reporting in the discussion section. The appropriate section for these information is in the result section.

How do your findings relate to other studies looking at the same topic? No other studies cited in the discussion? Is this because there are no studies that have done looking at the teaching of POCT in the UK or another country? Please clarify.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35377_reviewed.docx

PONE-D-21-35377R1What is the scope of teaching and training of undergraduate students and trainees in Point of Care Testing in UK universities and hospital laboratories?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. PETERS,

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.

==============================

The majority of the reviewers concerns have been addressed. Please just note the minor typographical and grammatical errors highlighted and correct.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 29 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,

Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The majority of the reviewers concerns have been addressed. Please just note the minor typographical and grammatical errors highlighted and correct.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: A track changes word document with correction of grammatical errors has been provided for the authors to review and agree or adjust the changes.

Minor revisions are listed in the reviewers recommendation document for the authors to address.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

Line 19: write NHS in full and abbreviate thereafter.

Line 29: Leave a space between 9% and (13/137)

Line 31: Add comma after scientist. Should read like this: The findings demonstrate that although this is a commonly required skill for biomedical scientists, there is a clear lack of POCT teaching and training in the UK.

Introduction

Line 45-46: Rewrite glucose and pregnancy in lower cases. Rewrite INR in full and abbreviate thereafter.

Line 57-58: Consider rephrasing this sentence and including that POCT as a method to prevent unnecessary hospital admission. The NHS England long-term plan (7) discusses the use of POCT as a method to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions.

Line 72: Footnotes misplaced

Line 85. Remove extra full stop after Biomedical science (11).

Line 91: Remove extra full stop

Line 122: Change Kennedy, Hyland & Davis to Kennedy et al (19).

Line 134: Add full stop after appendix 2.

Line 158: Change Knight, Stead & Geyton to Knight et al (32).

Material and Methods

Line 182: Change Surveys to surveys.

Line 205: Remove extra space after “searched”.

Results

Line 240: change 97% (173) to 97% (173/179) responded.

Line 252: Add full stop after 2018.

Line 257: Change Los to LOs.

Line 259: Change Forty seven to Forty-seven.

Line 275: change Table 4 Shows to Table 4 shows the evidence used……

Line 302: it is not clear that the sentence “This question yielded 225 usable responses” refers to line 297-299 statement.

Discussion

Line 318: Leave a space between taught and at. Change taughtat to taught at.

Line 326: Remove extra comma after universities.

Line 329: Change to Schoepp et al. in their review of LO in 10 leading……

Line 331: Change to Schoepp et al. mapped the learning…….

Line 364-367: Remove authors. Should read like: In their national of English pathology, Lewis et al. looked at the percentages of hospital coagulometer, community glucose and community INR tests were done with laboratory oversight.

Line 372: Add % after 32.

Line 374: Change eth to the.

Line 423: Lower case Summary

Line 427-430: This paragraph is unnecessary. The aims of the study already articulated under introduction. Please consider removing it.

Reference:

Line 460: Put a space after at https://www.ibms.org/

Line 473: Change it to Jenkins A, Unwind D. How to write learning outcomes. Confirm the website.

**********

7. 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35377_R1_Reveiwer recommendations.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35377_R1_reviewed.docx

What is the scope of teaching and training of undergraduate students and trainees in Point of Care Testing in UK universities and hospital laboratories?

PONE-D-21-35377R2

Dear Dr. PETERS,

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,

Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. 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: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: All comments and corrections have been addressed.

Minor grammatical changes have been corrected in the uploaded attachment.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

Line 25: Put a full stop between “450 hours and The median time…….”.

Line 30: Change number 8 to eight

Introduction

Line 47: Change the font for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to similar to the rest of the text.

Line 65: Change Council to lower case

Line 112: Place the full stop after the reference. Should read like this: “in light of recent advances in practice” (11).

Results

Line 254: Write IQR in full and abbreviate thereafter.

Table 3: Write the level in upper case

Supporting documents

Appendix 3: Row labels start with the lower while Appendix 4 start with upper case. I suggest you make row labels similar.

Appendix 4: Change these row labels: ARRANGE, RELATE, SELECT and know to Arrange, Relate, Select, and Know, respectively.

**********

7. 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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35377_R2_Reviewed.docx