Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fellainis_Elbows t1_j1zfigf wrote

Reply to comment by aedes in How do shifts work on really long medical operations? by TerjiD

You mean no benefit to longer hours. That’s how the study should be interpreted

16

AnonymousWritings t1_j207vix wrote

No benefit to longer hours, except that shorter hours makes for a profession that is kinder to the people working in It and easier to convince people to join it. Good when we have healthcare worker shortages....

8

aedes t1_j1zr8nj wrote

You might think I was referring to some of the NEJM papers that came out around 2018 comparing standard to “flexible” scheduling?

I was more talking about the older papers that came out in the first decade of the 2000s when duty hour restrictions first came into place... which compared old-school scheduling to duty-hour restrictions and found no difference in patient outcomes (or occasionally worse patient outcomes with restrictions in some of the surgical literature).

3

coilycat t1_j1zphnl wrote

Could you explain the difference? Are you familiar with the studies being referenced? I am familiar with how the null hypothesis works, if that helps.

1

zebediah49 t1_j1zrhqg wrote

They're saying that if the two are statistically indistinguishable, "there's no benefit to forcing staff to work long hours" is a 'better' way of phrasing it compared to "there's no benefit to not forcing staff to work long hours". The first implies that being good to your workers should be the default choice; the second the opposite.

11