Cited by 211Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHospital Admissions and OutcomesSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

The effect of work hours on adverse events and errors in health care.

Open access
Olds, Danielle M., Clarke, Sean P.·2010·Journal of Safety Research

Abstract

Introduction We studied the relationship between registered nurses' extended work duration with adverse events and errors, including needlestick injuries, work-related injuries, patient falls with injury, nosocomial infections, and medication errors.Method Using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression, this secondary analysis of 11,516 registered nurses examined nurse characteristics, work hours, and adverse events and errors.Results All of the adverse event and error variables were significantly related to working more than 40 hours in the average week. Medication errors and needlestick injuries had the strongest and most consistent relationships with the work hour and voluntary overtime variables.Discussion This study confirms prior findings that increased work hours raise the likelihood of adverse events and errors in healthcare, and further found the same relationship with voluntary overtime.Impact on industry Legislation has focused on mandatory overtime; however, this study demonstrated that voluntary overtime could also negatively impact nurse and patient safety.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.002

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olds, D. M., & Clarke, S. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Olds, Danielle M.
Venue
Journal of Safety Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
153-162
ISSN
0022-4375 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968026351
Cited by
211
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
13.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Safety Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30nr005043-10)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (P30-NR-005043, R01NR004513, T32NR007104)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
adverse events, medical errors, needlestick injuries, occupational injuries, patient falls, nosocomial infections, medication errors, mandatory overtime, nurse safety, patient safety, registered nurses
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Accidents, Occupational, Adult, Cross Infection, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Medication Errors, Middle Aged, Nurses, Pennsylvania, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Work Schedule Tolerance, Logistic Models, Workload, Needlestick Injuries, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review