Introduction. The purpose of this paper is to critically appraise a research article on the topic of the effect of nurses’ shift length and overtime working on quality of care and patient safety. The article is titled, “Nurses’ Shift Length and Overtime Working in 12 European Countries. The Association with Perceived Quality of Care and Patient Safety.” The authors are Peter Griffith, Chiara Dall’Ora, Michael Simon, Jane Ball, Rikard Lindqvist, Anne-Marie Rafferty, Lisette Schoonhoven, Carol Tishelman, and Linda H. Aiken. The article was published in November 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Abstract. The abstract was thorough and concise. It included key elements such as the study problem, objectives, methods, results, and
…show more content…
The authors proposed a simple model from a study conducted by Patterson PD et al. on The Shift Length, Fatigue, and Safety Conundrom in EMS, which indicated that increased fatigue during the shift mediates the effect of shift length on performance leading to errors, omissions, and lower efficiency (Griffith et al., 2014). In addition, they noted that overtime working with long shifts has also been associated with adverse quality for the same reasons. Although the study lacked a clear theoretical framework, the simple model proposed was relevant to the study purpose, variables, and findings of the research. Research Objective, Question, and Hypothesis. The study did not present a research question or a hypothesis in the article. These components along with the objectives of the study would have provided a stronger direction to why the study was conducted and what might be the expected …show more content…
Griffith et al. provided clear information on the tools used to measure the variables in the study, yet they fail to include the reliability and validity of most tools. The survey was based on the International Hospital Outcomes Study questionnaire and the content validity index for all items used in the survey were classified as good or better with content validity index >0.6. Responses of the quality of care and patient safety were grouped to reflect negative or positive evaluations. A “poor and fair” response reflected a negative evaluation on quality of care, and a “poor” and “failing,” reflected a negative evaluation on patient safety. The reliability and validity for these measurements were not mentioned. Common activities were derived from the BERNCA instrument to measure nursing duties that were left undone, however the reliability and validity of the instrument were also unexplained. A reported shift length that was ≥18 hours was excluded because it was 8 hours increased the odds of adverse quality and safety. Significant findings were explained, however non-significant findings were not explained. This made the interpretation of the data difficult because it did not explain whether this might have been attributed to a small sample
The authors proposed a simple model from a study conducted by Patterson PD et al. on The Shift Length, Fatigue, and Safety Conundrom in EMS, which indicated that increased fatigue during the shift mediates the effect of shift length on performance leading to errors, omissions, and lower efficiency (Griffith et al., 2014). In addition, they noted that overtime working with long shifts has also been associated with adverse quality for the same reasons. Although the study lacked a clear theoretical framework, the simple model proposed was relevant to the study purpose, variables, and findings of the research. Research Objective, Question, and Hypothesis. The study did not present a research question or a hypothesis in the article. These components along with the objectives of the study would have provided a stronger direction to why the study was conducted and what might be the expected …show more content…
Griffith et al. provided clear information on the tools used to measure the variables in the study, yet they fail to include the reliability and validity of most tools. The survey was based on the International Hospital Outcomes Study questionnaire and the content validity index for all items used in the survey were classified as good or better with content validity index >0.6. Responses of the quality of care and patient safety were grouped to reflect negative or positive evaluations. A “poor and fair” response reflected a negative evaluation on quality of care, and a “poor” and “failing,” reflected a negative evaluation on patient safety. The reliability and validity for these measurements were not mentioned. Common activities were derived from the BERNCA instrument to measure nursing duties that were left undone, however the reliability and validity of the instrument were also unexplained. A reported shift length that was ≥18 hours was excluded because it was 8 hours increased the odds of adverse quality and safety. Significant findings were explained, however non-significant findings were not explained. This made the interpretation of the data difficult because it did not explain whether this might have been attributed to a small sample