Nursing Fatigue, Work Hours, and Practice Errors: A Study Review
This paper critically examines a study by Thomas (2005) that investigated the relationship between nursing work hours, fatigue, and practice errors among nurses reported to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. Using the TERCAP methodology and questionnaire data from 122 nurses and 117 employers, the study's surface findings suggested no significant link between overtime and errors. However, qualitative responses revealed that nurses described feeling overwhelmed, rushed, and stressed — states that may constitute fatigue by another name. The paper explores the study's limitations, its implications for nursing practice, and how its findings both challenged and reinforced assumptions about workload, fatigue, and the risk of errors during 12-hour shifts.
- Overview of the Thomas (2005) Study: Study scope, participants, and initial findings
- Research Methodology and TERCAP Framework: TERCAP data collection and questionnaire design
- Key Findings and Their Nuances: Reported fatigue, shift length, and error patterns
- Study Limitations and Reliability Concerns: Response bias and definitional ambiguities
- Implications for Nursing Practice: Recommended changes to shifts and fatigue education
- Impact on Assumptions About Fatigue and Workload: Which assumptions were strengthened or weakened
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper goes beyond surface-level findings to interrogate the methodology and self-reported nature of the data, demonstrating critical thinking about research limitations.
- It distinguishes between quantitative TERCAP data and qualitative open-ended responses, showing awareness of how different data types can tell different stories.
- The conclusion directly ties back to the opening assumptions, clearly identifying which were strengthened and which were weakened by the study's findings.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models source critique effectively: it summarizes the study's findings faithfully but then identifies internal contradictions — particularly that nurses who denied fatigue nonetheless described feeling "overwhelmed and rushed," which the author argues is fatigue under a different label. This move from summary to critique to implication is a strong undergraduate analytical pattern.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a summary of the study's scope and participant data, moves into methodology, then presents findings with critical commentary woven in throughout. A dedicated limitations section addresses reliability concerns, followed by practice implications and a closing synthesis that maps findings back to original assumptions. The single source is handled in depth rather than breadth.
Overview of the Thomas (2005) Study
Thomas (2005) analyzes the responses of nurses who were reported to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing for nursing errors. The responses were gathered from questionnaires delivered to both the reported nurses and their employers. The focus of the questionnaires was to identify any relationship — if one existed — between the number of working hours of the reported nurses, the incidents in question, and nursing fatigue.
A total of 117 employers and 122 nurses responded. The responses indicated that almost all nurses who were reported for incidents worked 40 or fewer hours per week in total — that is, taking into account any and all jobs a nurse might hold — and that "the vast majority of nurses denied experiencing fatigue" (Thomas, 2005, p. 2). The questionnaire responses thus suggested no relation between nursing incidents or errors and nursing fatigue, mainly because nearly 70% of the nurses who responded reported working only 40 hours or fewer per week. Twenty percent reported working between 40 and 50 hours per week, 7% reported working between 50 and 60 hours per week, and 5% reported working more than 60 hours per week. That means only about one-third of respondents actually worked more than what is considered a full work week's load.
However, this is not a fair assessment of whether a nurse experiences fatigue. As Thomas points out, many nurses may have felt pressure to respond that they did not feel fatigued in the questionnaire's open-ended section, which introduces a measure of unreliability to the study overall. In short, the study is helpful in showing how many nurses reported for errors worked overtime, yet it does not definitively determine whether fatigue was or was not a variable in the errors committed.
Research Methodology and TERCAP Framework
The research methodology was based on the Taxonomy of Error Reporting and Root Cause Analysis (TERCAP), developed by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. TERCAP served as the primary method of collecting data on nursing errors and on the variables of working hours and self-reported nursing fatigue. The questionnaires that were sent out were not randomly distributed but were based on the names appearing in the errors report. The method involved sending questionnaires to the nurses and to their managers in order to obtain information on whether nurses were actually being overworked and whether they felt fatigued. The questionnaire was designed to include space for nurses to make comments regarding their "feelings of fatigue" (Thomas, 2005, p. 2).
Key Findings and Their Nuances
Findings showed that some nurses did express feelings of fatigue, citing causes such as workload, job frustration, job stress, illness, the illness of their children, pregnancy, and education. The study also found that nurses frequently expressed not feeling fatigued so much as "overwhelmed and rushed" (Thomas, 2005, p. 3). Overall, the findings suggested that most nurses who were reported for practice errors did not feel fatigued and did not work more than forty hours per week at the time the practice error was committed. The study thus found no significant relation between practice errors and fatigue.
With that said, the study also acknowledged an important nuance: a large percentage of nurses in the study were working 12-hour shifts at the time of the nursing practice error. This means that fatigue could be reached on a shift basis rather than on a weekly workload basis. Other researchers cited in the study have found that the majority of errors committed by nurses occur during 12-hour shifts. The study further notes that 80% of nurses remain at work past the conclusion of their scheduled shift, making even the 12-hour mark an inaccurate gauge of how long a nurse is actually working. The study therefore concludes that this type of "overtime" may be a "silent contributor to nursing practice errors" (Thomas, 2005, p. 3).
What needs to be considered for future research is how well relevant terms are defined. Providing clear definitions within the questionnaire could assist respondents in making more accurate assessments of their own condition. The number of hours worked per week may be a less relevant metric than shift length, since the data indicate that fatigue manifests on a daily rather than weekly basis.
References
Thomas, M. (2005). Study examines working hours and feelings of fatigue by reported nurses. Texas Board of Nursing Bulletin, 36(4): 2–3.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.