this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
586 points (98.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39787 readers
1087 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Are these really the people that should be required to work so much? Isn't their job about handling life and death daily? Wouldn't we want exactly these people to come fully rested to work every single day and be fully staffed?

I don't know if there are jobs with similar stakes that are so carelessly staffed and disgustingly paid.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Who's we? I'm certainly not okay with it

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago

Yea, "we" the people are not okay with it. "We" the profit driven corporate vampires are okay with it because "profits".

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 184 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

No we're not. But generally governments everywhere want to starve the medical industry to make it generate profit for the wealthy. The US is their role model.

Glares at Doug Ford

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 42 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Tries to glare at Tim Hortons but it is not available in my region

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 17 points 6 days ago

Honestly, I don't think it's even about profit everywhere.

I obviously don't know what it's like in Canada, but in my country, we also have socialized healthcare (like Canada), we have a shortage of some specialty doctors because they're expensive to train and expensive to hire, and many go to other, richer countries instead (Finland in particular, as it's close by). But nobody works huge amounts of overtime usually. Nurses work double or triple shifts, but mostly overtime is voluntary, and the only reason they work 16 or 24 hours in a row is because of stupid traditions and the slight risk of information going missing with the shift change.

The one upside is that they get a bunch of days off after each shift since you only need 2 shifts a week, and actually get to skip one shift every now and then if you don't want to do overtime.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Momentum is hard to overcome and it’s been done this way for many many years

The guy who is largely attributed to making the medical residency system so punishingly difficult in terms of hours was coke addict btw. William Stewart Halsted. That was like 1890 and residents didn’t have their hours limited until 2003 (and even then, barely)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I saw that they were "limited" to 80 fucking hours a week (in the US). Quite the limit.

[–] lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 5 days ago (4 children)

This is actually an interesting question.

They experimented with “office hours” for doctors and patients were dying more than double/triple shift.

This because the information lost during handoff was more valuable than doctors being more tired (and by consequence doing more mistakes).

This is a textbook example of the risks of lost context

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 8 points 5 days ago

I'd like to see those numbers. I'm not finding clear numbers on shift-length mortality. This meta review (Systematic Review of the Impact of Physician Work Schedules on Patient Safety with Meta-Analyses of Mortality Risk, 2023, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.06.014 ) says

Limiting all resident physicians to 80-hour work weeks and 28-hour shifts in 2003 was associated with an 11% reduction in mortality (p < 0.001). Limited shift durations and shorter work weeks were also associated with improved patient safety in clinical trials and observational studies not specifically tied to policy changes.

I think we can all agree that a 28 hour shift is fucking insane and that anybody doing such a long shift will not be of sound capacity.

And if hand-offs are killing more people than work hours, then that just means that the hand-off procedures are terrible. I'd want to see what kind of hand-offs are being compared and if hand-off methods have different patient events.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

I fully agree with this as far as why they do extended shifts of 12 hours or more. But, OP did say double and triple shifts so they might not be just referencing the longer shifts. In that case it is corporate greed.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

I mean, did they increase staff numbers proportionally to hour reduction or did they just have people go home? Because if it's the latter, then duh.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip 102 points 6 days ago (9 children)

Because the alternative is the rich paying more in taxes, and we can't have that obviously.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] vapordays@leminal.space 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A lot of people have alluded to this already, but I'll simplify.

"We" are not OK with it. "We" are not the ones making the decisions

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We're not. But, just like AI, executives with the ideology of rapists don't care about our consent.

Who would've thought that running every industry and business like mini dictatorships would backfire? Thanks capitalism!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 29 points 6 days ago

The greatest fear of capitalist administrators is that there might be a slow night in the hospital and a few employees have some down time to take a breath where no "production" is taking place. The shareholders would not be amused. That's why they staff hospitals with the bare minimum, paying them as little as possible and using them as much as possible.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 57 points 6 days ago (4 children)

We aren't. But it's generally better for patient care. It's the same nurse/doctor seeing through more of the care of a patient with less handovers.
Handovers are where minor details or context can be forgotten, dropped or misunderstood - especially after a really tough shift.
Patients also get to see the same faces more often, which makes them feel like they are being taken care of - as opposed to a part being made in a machine.

But it's wrong. It would be better to have 8 hour shifts with 2-4 hour overlaps between shifts. So it's not a handover, it's an actual rounds, it's actually servicing patients and so on.
But that is likely very intrusive for patients, and 4-8 hours of the shift is with someone else (who you might not like or agree with) and communicating (which can be tiring).

So yeh, it's not great. Understaffing doesn't help, especially since these are people that genuinely care about their work. It's pure exploitation, because it is cheaper and hospital administration can justify it and get away with it (or whatever is higher that hospital admin in the case of free healthcare).

In some cases, it's budget and exploitation. And it's bullshit.
But there is a genuine argument that a doctor who is fully informed and tired is better than a doctor who is fresh and oblivious.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 51 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

I'm always slightly skeptical of this answer just because residency pretty much intentionally gaslights doctors into thinking that exhausted decision making is normal and unavoidable... All because the guy who started medical residencies had a massive cocaine addiction and it was 1900.

I'd be curious to see a study with data on patient outcome, wait time, use of resources etc, that measures exhausted double shifted doctors, vs fresh doctors with more context switching, vs fresh doctors + appropriate overlap to avoid context switching.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

They've done those studies and context switching has historically been where the most problems occur. Whether they've repeated them with modern electronic medical records and systems, I don't know. I think most people agree there's probably a better middle ground between 8 hr shifts (3 handoffs a day) and the standards set by a dude who liked to experiment with coke and meth.

One of the big issues that I feel like doesn't get touched on as much is longer shifts allow less doctors, which reinforces the artificially low doctor graduation rates. The national board in the US pegs the graduation at X thousand new doctors every year and that number is mostly tradition / vibes. No we don't want to compromise on the ability of new doctors, but "gestures vaguely to US healthcare" good lord do we need more of them. Much the same could be said for nurses.

And all of that circles back around to not wanting to dilute traditionally higher paying job markets with more practitioners because the for-profit system will try to wring out every cent they can.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 24 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.

Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.

It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?

That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.

But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons — a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.

You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all ‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’ yourself.

from Now and After by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 5: Unemployment. Available to read for free here.

Even in countries where healthcare is socialised, they are run "efficiently" like a capitalist business by administrators who care not for healthcare but for finances, "balancing the books", and bean counting.

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 33 points 6 days ago (1 children)

my gf is a nurse and it is absolutely bonkers how the healthcare system works at all, shit is very run down and society as a whole needs a lot of shifting for how taxation affects the health care system. tax the fucking rich and make them pay their fair share and siphon that into healthcare.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 38 points 6 days ago (4 children)

A combination of a few things.

First, the founder of modern medical teaching was a man who loved cocaine and created a fairly aggressive education program which fed into a profession without work-life balance. The profession hasn't self-reformed while cases where skilled labor has massive overtime is generally more regulated.

Second, the cost of education is enormous. Medical training for a doctor costs north of half a million dollars, so there is a high cost to training an additional doctor. Because of that, it is more cost effective to add additional shifts to existing doctors and nurses.

Third, a lot of doctors have a god complex and don't want to admit they are fallible people. Because of this, they resist a lot of best practices other industries; checklists for operations are a 21st century "medical technology". There isn't a push within the industry to study how people fail like there is in other industries.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

Because of this, they resist a lot of best practices other industries; checklists for operations are a 21st century “medical technology”.

When I was an electronics technician in the Air Force, 'tool accountability' was huge. All toolboxes were arranged with individual foam cutouts for every individual tool, no matter how small, so it would be quickly and easily obvious from a mere glance if a tool was missing from the toolbox, leaving an empty cutout behind. (Like this.) Paperwork was required to check tools out of and into tool boxes. At the end of every job, the toolbox had to be checked -- both the paperwork and visually -- to ensure no tools were missing. (And if tools were missing, the job wasn't done until those tools were found and accounted for.)

And that's because aircraft in general -- and jet engines in particular -- really don't like lost tools banging around loose inside. I didn't even work on engines, or even on aircraft, but the Air Force had adopted these policies service-wide to prevent accidents resulting from lost tools left inside engines.

Which is why it baffles me that surgeons can sometimes accidentally leave a tool inside a patient. Working on a real human body is way more important than anything I worked on ... and human bodies don't like foreign objects left behind any more than jet engines do. Plus, those surgeons are getting paid so much more than I did, and they even have assistants in the room to handle the tools for them. How the fuck have they not managed to have a similar system of tool accountability, preventing them from leaving tools behind inside patients?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

on the third point the it was the anesthiesa professional group which made the push for the much more rigorous process that greatly improved outcomes. So there is some precedence for the profession realizing it needs to improve processes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 35 points 6 days ago

I'm not OK with it and I vote with this specifically in mind.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Because one lunatic doctor had a cocaine addiction and could go days at a time without sleep, so he demanded the same from all his students who werent riding the white lightning, which inevitably left a deep cultural impact and expectation for everyone that followed to do the same, because "I suffered, so you suffer too"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 20 points 6 days ago (6 children)

No one does this outside of the USA. It is not at all normal, just like being stuck with the imperial system of measurements.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? I live in Europe and this is standard. I know midwives, nurses, and doctors and they have the worst work schedules. I think in France health workers can even be prohibited from striking. The government declared it an "essential" job and when there aren't enough workers, striking isn't allowed. THey are always understaffed, so they aren't allowed to strike. GReat eh?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Not really true. At least in Germany, the health workers are also extremely overworked. From nurses to surgeons. It's a big problem

Source: family and friends who work there

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've worked with surgeons in US and Europe. It is definitely worse in the US but surgical culture is also like this in Europe just to a slightly lesser degree.

It's deeply rooted in medical / surgical culture and much of it comes from not wanting to pay for more of these highly trained workers when you can just squeeze more out of a smaller cohort. Issues with handoffs for patient care are real with shift type work, but this could be improved if it became more standard.

Gen Z is a bit more concerned about these kinds of issues so some changes may be happening soon, but ultimately this will not likely ever self regulate and only legislative changes would effectively change this culture.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Horsey@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

You know, healthcare jobs are the only ones I see “advertised” here in the Southwest. There are billboards for all sorts of medical careers. I’ve had friends and acquaintances talk about being a nurse as a backup career plan.

Nursing is a career path where you cannot rise to the top ranks. Nurses cannot ever rise above doctors, because the next step up is a doctor. The repeat clients in a hospital setting in the southwest are drug addicts or psych patients. The “average” person going to the hospital is going there with something severe. Not to say that everyone doesn’t deserve care, but know your patient base. Nurses are strapped in the entire shift, and being late from lunch is like being late to work. It’s incredibly stressful, and there are studies that essentially show that nurses are worked to the mental and physical limit in their lifetime.

Nurses are treated like shit, and there’s a steady stream of them leaving the profession or moving into admin positions where they’ll settle in; you’re way better off in every way to just aspire to the admin jobs with a master’s of public health. Tell your friends. You’re welcome.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Most of them actually. Am a nurse and was once psychiatrically hospitalized alongside a train conductor and we really bonded over our ridiculous and yet supposedly "high reliability industry" jobs. She actually got hooked on speedballs because there's some weird loophole in our state where the train conductors need to give something like 48–72h notice or something to take sick leave so most of them just show up for their 16h shifts fucked up on amphetamines to stay awake then benzos so the amphetamines don't give them tachycardia and one of her managers actually basically gave her a pep talk on which doctors to go to and what to say to get them prescribed legally but given that they're both extremely addictive substances her dosages spiraled wildly out of control extremely quickly such that she was only able to get effective doses extralegally. On the plus side though losing that job and getting shipped to the other end of the state just to find a bed got her away from both her dealer and her cartoonishly abusive ex (even a week into her stay the bruising was pretty wild). And then actually when I left the hospital my third time I met my now husband in partial although we lost touch for like a year until we ran into each other again and he helped me escape my much more subtly shitty relationship and actually graduate / get licensed (if you think nurse pay is shit I was getting paid $12.50 as a nursing assistant working with criminally insane men and that was after the promotion).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 18 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I'm not really OK with it, but I never got a vote on the subject.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Wait until they find out about pilots

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago

Or public transport operators

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago

The decision making center of your brain is the prefrontal cortex. It's the really thinky bit. It is what does the explicit thought about novel situations. When something is done "instinctively" or out of habit, that's usually handed off to the amygdala. It's used more for stuff that you've done many many times before.

When you are tired, haven't eaten well, and any number of other conditions that overworked and overstressed doctors face, your prefrontal cortex will do a lousy job. The amygdala will actually secrete chemicals that inhibit the performance of the PFC. As such, routine things are probably ok. something novel comes up? Bad times.

I'd prefer my doctor is well rested and in a good frame of mind to make quality decisions, thank you.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (4 children)

If I recall, most medical mistakes take place over shift changes. Things like a patient getting a double dose of meds because they didn't realize the prior shift already gave them. The idea is that minimizing the number of shift changes reduces the number of mistakes.

[–] Sludge@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago (12 children)

This is accurate. It has to do with minimizing handoff risk.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7539758/

Lots of uneducated responses in this thread that are pure conjecture and drivel.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 14 points 6 days ago

This is the explanation I’ve heard. It seems like someone should have thought of a better solution by now, though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You know what's funny? I actually think the situation is a lot better than you're making it out to be.

You're not entirely wrong. There absolutely are positions in hospitals where people do insane schedules like 24 or 48 hour shifts. But that's mostly concentrated around emergency medicine, trauma, surgical residency, ICU coverage, and certain on-call specialties. There’s definitely a culture surrounding ER staff and surgeons where sleep deprivation almost gets treated like some badge of honor.

But the majority of the medical world in America does not operate like that.

Most hospitals primarily run on normal shift structures. Nurses on regular floors and patient wings are usually working standard 8 or 12 hour rotations with multiple shift changes throughout the day just like any other industry. And once you get into private practice, some doctors are only in office a few days a week seeing a relatively small number of patients across different locations.

People also forget hospitals are not run exclusively by doctors and nurses. They're massive operations with huge amounts of support staff, technicians, imaging departments, transport, administration, custodial staff, billing, labs, and so on, most of whom work completely normal schedules.

So yes, what you're describing does exist. But I don't think it's remotely as universal or apocalyptic as people make it sound. A lot of public perception comes from dramatized media where every hospital is portrayed like a nonstop trauma center operating at DEFCON 1 twenty-four hours a day.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We're not.

We're just powerless to change it outside of our local jurisdiction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Having been chronically overworked for a while in my profession, the last thing I want is my life in the hands of somebody chronically overworked.

At least in my profession the mistakes I made because of being so tired did not kill anybody or handicapped somebody for life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Iirc, here in the UK it’s illegal to ask a doctor or nurse to work s triple shift. I think it should be for doubles as well, excepting major emergencies which involve a sudden influx of patients

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Meatwagon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'm not okay with it but it's the type of problem that can only be solved by them. They have to go on strike and protest.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

In a vacuum, yes. The problem is that when, say, chip fabricators go on strike, orders for microchips don't get fulfilled on time and the company loses money. When SAG goes on strike for months, movies get delayed, and people usually cheer them on in solidarity. When MEDICAL professionals go on strike en mass, people will die... Quickly, in some cases. People say they support us, and I get a free breakfast once a year at Denny's during Nurse's Week, but nobody's going to cheer on the picket line outside when their dad or grandmother is INSIDE, sitting in their own poop, or not being fed, or having respiratory distress.

You don't go into nursing for the money or easy work. You don't even do it because it's "just a job to pay the bills" because there's way easier ways to make this little money. You do it to because you're the kind of person who is more fulfilled by helping a stranger than by helping yourself, and those people are not ok with risking the life and safety of their patients over a shift differential. A LOT of nurses would cross the line to help them anyway, which would negate the whole effort.. It sucks, but that's it.

I've been a nurse for about 10 years now after getting out of the military, so I have some perspective on this, but I don't know what the way forward is without letting a couple of vulnerable people die to catalyze change in the field.

[–] Meatwagon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I understand, but you guys are setting yourselves on fire to keep society warm.

In Japan when bus drivers go on strike they don't stop the buses, but they stop taking bus fare from riders so the company doesn't get paid. Maybe something involving medical notes so they can't get billing codes.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago (3 children)

We have to vote. They can't be left alone.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›