Vilde Hoff Bernstrøm, Mari Ingelsrud, Anne-Marthe Rustad Indregard, Karoline Seglem
{"title":"Do Compressed Work Schedules Compromise Care Quality? A Five-Year Case Control Study in the Norwegian Long-Term Care Sector.","authors":"Vilde Hoff Bernstrøm, Mari Ingelsrud, Anne-Marthe Rustad Indregard, Karoline Seglem","doi":"10.1177/11786329261471203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In a compressed work schedule, employees work extended shifts (≥10 hours) in exchange for fewer workdays. This shift schedule has been argued to both improve and compromise the quality of care. However, existing research remains limited and inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether extended shifts within compressed work schedules impact the risk of adverse outcomes among care recipients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Quasi-experimental case control study.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We combined a nationwide organizational survey from 1,072 long-term care institution in Norway with registry data on service users from 2018-2022. At baseline, all participating organizations operated either a two-shift rotation (day/evening) with fixed night workers or a three-shift rotation (day/evening/night). The intervention group comprised organizations (n=320) that introduced a compressed schedule during the study period; the control group retained their existing shift rotations. Using difference in difference with multiple treatment times we analysed changes in proportion of service users within each organization experiencing at least one adverse outcome per month. Adverse outcomes were identified via diagnostic codes from the Norwegian Registry for Primary Health Care, including infections, chronic ulcers, accidents, and depression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, we found no difference in the risk of adverse outcomes (b -0.46, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.05). Stratified analyses indicated a significant reduction in adverse outcomes in nursing homes (b -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.10). However, we found no significant change in residential care (b 0.20, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.70) or home care (b -0.42, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.36).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings neither discourage the use of compressed work schedules due to adverse outcomes nor indicate broad improvements. However, the results suggest potential context-specific benefits that warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12876,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Insights","volume":"19 ","pages":"11786329261471203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13487131/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329261471203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In a compressed work schedule, employees work extended shifts (≥10 hours) in exchange for fewer workdays. This shift schedule has been argued to both improve and compromise the quality of care. However, existing research remains limited and inconclusive.
Objective: To assess whether extended shifts within compressed work schedules impact the risk of adverse outcomes among care recipients.
Design: Quasi-experimental case control study.
Method: We combined a nationwide organizational survey from 1,072 long-term care institution in Norway with registry data on service users from 2018-2022. At baseline, all participating organizations operated either a two-shift rotation (day/evening) with fixed night workers or a three-shift rotation (day/evening/night). The intervention group comprised organizations (n=320) that introduced a compressed schedule during the study period; the control group retained their existing shift rotations. Using difference in difference with multiple treatment times we analysed changes in proportion of service users within each organization experiencing at least one adverse outcome per month. Adverse outcomes were identified via diagnostic codes from the Norwegian Registry for Primary Health Care, including infections, chronic ulcers, accidents, and depression.
Results: Overall, we found no difference in the risk of adverse outcomes (b -0.46, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.05). Stratified analyses indicated a significant reduction in adverse outcomes in nursing homes (b -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.10). However, we found no significant change in residential care (b 0.20, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.70) or home care (b -0.42, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.36).
Conclusion: The findings neither discourage the use of compressed work schedules due to adverse outcomes nor indicate broad improvements. However, the results suggest potential context-specific benefits that warrant further investigation.
背景:在压缩的工作时间表中,员工延长轮班(≥10小时)以换取更少的工作日。有人认为这种轮班安排既提高了护理质量,也损害了护理质量。然而,现有的研究仍然有限且不确定。目的:评估在压缩的工作时间表中延长轮班是否会影响护理接受者不良后果的风险。设计:准实验病例对照研究。方法:我们将挪威1072家长期护理机构的全国性组织调查与2018-2022年服务用户的登记数据相结合。在基线上,所有参加组织不是两班轮流(白天/晚上),有固定的夜班工人,就是三班轮流(白天/晚上/晚上)。干预组包括在研究期间引入压缩时间表的组织(n=320);对照组保持现有的轮班轮换。利用多次治疗时间的差异,我们分析了每个组织中每月至少经历一次不良后果的服务使用者比例的变化。通过挪威初级卫生保健登记处的诊断代码确定不良后果,包括感染、慢性溃疡、事故和抑郁症。结果:总体而言,我们发现不良结局的风险没有差异(b -0.46, 95% CI -0.97至0.05)。分层分析表明,养老院的不良结果显著减少(b -0.79, 95% CI -1.48至-0.10)。然而,我们发现住家护理(b - 0.20, 95% CI -1.11至0.70)或家庭护理(b -0.42, 95% CI -1.20至0.36)没有显著变化。结论:研究结果既没有因为不利结果而劝阻使用压缩工作时间表,也没有表明广泛的改进。然而,结果表明潜在的特定环境的益处值得进一步研究。