Experiments with a shorter workweek have shown that shown that working fewer hours improves worker well-being and productivity. But we can’t expect employers to implement this transformative change of their own volition.
Experiments with a shorter workweek have shown that shown that working fewer hours improves worker well-being and productivity. But we can’t expect employers to implement this transformative change of their own volition.
Unfortunate picture. At my hospital nurses work 3 12s. That’s how we look after a run of 4. 36 hours treated as full time. Don’t really know how that would relate to a proposed 4 day workweek for normies.
Is there anything like a rational explanation for why an area where focus and accuracy are most critical insists on working people long past their ability to function efficiently? In a sane world, there would be shorter shifts for this, not longer. (And there would be more people doing them, instead of the absolutely minimum necessary to avoid disaster.)
Because one of the biggest obstacles of continuity of care is handing over the patient. We try to write accurate notes and try to give complete report but there’s always stuff lost. You hope whoever you hand off to gets a chance to actually read progress notes but that’s not realistically going to happen. That’s why we don’t tend to do three shifts. Report easily takes 15 to 30 minutes of just talking and we still miss stuff.
Now you can set it up so this isn’t an issue but that requires staffing for clean documentation. I’d also like a pony.
Youd do 29 hours, not 36. So like 2.75 days or whatever.