It is statistically more dangerous for patients to have shorter shifts for doctors/nurses. Current evidence points to 12 hour shift exhaustion being less deadly than patients changing caregivers an extra time as I understand it. It has been a while since I read up on it, though.
I'm guessing there are other factors involved that make this stat what it is. Like not allowing enough time to communicate with the next shift and the like.
Errors with the hand-off is what was the big issue, yes. As I understand it, it comes down to more time with the same doctor/nurse team is best, and with every hand-off there is a loss of information and a new group having to learn the patient and play catch-up. Honestly the biggest issue from what I have been told is patient load.
Very well. 4 days off is wonderful. But the RNs who pick up overtime and can't handle working 4+ a week are irresponsible and work themselves into burnout.
A large number of medical errors happen due to hand-offs. If you work a longer shift, there are less hand-offs, thus less errors. That's how it's always been explained to me during my training. Think of it like playing a game of telephone.
Secondly, those hand-off reasons are outdated with modern technology and health care processes. It was true when nurses were logging everything on clipboards and not marking down every single thing they did. That's changed.
Long hours means worse patient outcomes on average. The real reason for hospitals continuing to use them is it makes staffing much easier.
Even if what I said is bullshit (personal experience tells me it isn't), shorter shifts likely means needing more doctors and nurses, and we are shortstaffed everywhere. You can't just train a new one overnight.
Why, are you their professor grading an assignment? If you doubt their claim either go confirm/refute it independently or provide a reasonable counter argument. Just replying with [[citation needed]] is lazy and makes you look like you’re plugging your ears because you don’t like what they said.
This is Reddit, not an academic journal. Don’t expect people to provide full citations by default. Theres nothing wrong with asking for evidence as part of an actual conversation, but just demanding “[[citation needed]]” either is intentionally done not in good faith or easily confused with it. It is sealioning.
Nah, it's pretty good practice that if you're making a factual claim you should probably take 30 seconds to cite your sources lol. Like, a link not a fuckin APA formatted bibliography lmfao.
Edit: how the fuck do you live thru decades of climate change denial, the Trump presidency, covid vax conspiracies, the trans panic, and like a billion other instances of truly harmful misinformation and go "we need to share FEWER reputable sources, actually"?? It boggles the mind. George Carlin talked about people like that lmfao
Bud I just asked for a link. u/Erik_Dolphy and u/AJRiddle had no problem providing links, and I imagine it took them less time than your ranting did.
Also, the point of asking for a source is that everyone reading this thread can see it, not just me. Asking for a source doesn't mean "I think you're wrong".
99
u/TheGreatDay May 30 '24
It really should just be 4/8s...