Search

Aim. To bring insights into how healthcare managers and staffing assistants work to achieve sustainable working hours within a participatory scheduling system. Background. Hospital nurses and assistant nurses often work on rotating shifts, which affects their opportunities for sleep, recovery, and work-life balance. In Sweden, a participatory scheduling approach is commonly used, where working hours are planned in collaboration between employees, managers, and staffing assistants. Influence over working hours is related to positive outcomes among shift workers. However, it also places responsibility on the employee to schedule working hours that promote health and patient safety, i.e., sustainable working hours. Accordingly, the organisation has responsibilities to support the employee in this regard. Methods. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 11 managers and 9 staffing assistants from four Swedish regions and analysed using thematic analysis. Results. Several key factors for achieving sustainable working hours within the context of participatory scheduling were described: distribution and clarity of responsibilities, allocating time for scheduling, establishing shared responsibility, considering fairness, fostering an individual relationship with the employee, managing dissatisfaction, providing support, clarifying guidelines for sustainable scheduling, managing inconsistencies between employee requests and sustainable working hours, and considering recovery opportunities and the competence mix on shifts. Additionally, contextual factors, such as staffing levels, working procedures, working time arrangements for night work, and technological support, were highlighted as important. Conclusion. Achieving sustainable working hours within participatory scheduling involves considering the interactions between factors at the levels of the organisation, the individual, and the technological systems. Implication for Nursing Management. Nurse managers

Short rest (<11h) between evening and day shifts – known as quick returns (QRs) – impede recovery and may impair health. Nevertheless, QRs remain popular among some shift workers. This study explores nurses’ and nursing assistants’ perceptions of the merits and demerits of QRs from individual and organizational perspectives. Participants were recruited from eleven wards at two Swedish hospitals as part of a larger quasi-experimental intervention study. The majority (79%) had influence over their work schedules. Frequency distributions of responses are presented. Ninety six undertook a baseline survey regarding recovery, tolerance and work performance in relation to QRs. A majority experienced difficulties unwinding before bedtime (76%), insufficient sleep (80%), and daytime fatigue (72%). A third experienced an increased risk of errors and mistakes. However, QRs appeared to facilitate taking reports from patients and planning work, as this task was more often rated as ‘very easy’ following a QR compared to other shift combinations. Tolerance of QRs varied substantially. In conclusion, QRs seem to benefit continuity in work processes, but may do so at the expense of recovery and safety. Wards planning to reduce QRs –through participatory or fixed schedule models – should consider impacts on work processes., This study was funded by FORTE 2017-02032.

Objectives To examine if a proactive recovery intervention for newly graduated registered nurses (RNs) could prevent the development of sleep problems, burn-out, fatigue or somatic symptoms. Methods The study was a randomised control trial with parallel design. Newly graduated RNs with less than 12 months’ work experience were eligible to participate. 461 RNs from 8 hospitals in Sweden were invited, of which 207 signed up. These were randomised to either intervention or control groups. After adjustments, 99 RNs were included in the intervention group (mean age 27.5 years, 84.7% women) and 108 in the control group (mean age 27.0 years, 90.7% women). 82 RNs in the intervention group attended a group-administered recovery programme, involving three group sessions with 2 weeks between each session, focusing on proactive strategies for sleep and recovery in relation to work stress and shift work. Effects on sleep, burn-out, fatigue and somatic symptoms were measured by questionnaires at baseline, postintervention and at 6 months follow-up. Results Preventive effect was seen on somatic symptoms for the intervention group. Also, the intervention group showed less burn-out and fatigue symptoms at postintervention. However, these latter effects did not persist at follow-up. Participants used many of the strategies from the programme. Conclusions A proactive, group-administered recovery programme could be helpful in strengthening recovery and preventing negative health consequences for newly graduated RNs. Trial registration number NCT04246736.