Reliability and Validity of Survey Instruments to Measure Work-Related Fatigue in the Emergency Medical Services Setting: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to systematically search the literature to identify reliable and valid survey instruments for fatigue measurement in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) occupational setting. METHODS: A systematic review study design was used and searched six databases, including one website. The research question guiding the search was developed a priori and registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews: "Are there reliable and valid instruments for measuring fatigue among EMS personnel?" (2016:CRD42016040097). The primary outcome of interest was criterion-related validity. Important outcomes of interest included reliability (e.g., internal consistency), and indicators of sensitivity and specificity. Members of the research team independently screened records from the databases. Full-text articles were evaluated by adapting the Bolster and Rourke system for categorizing findings of systematic reviews, and the rated data abstracted from the body of literature as favorable, unfavorable, mixed/inconclusive, or no impact. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 1,257 unique records. Thirty-four unique experimental and non-experimental studies were determined relevant following full-text review. Nineteen studies reported on the reliability and/or validity of ten different fatigue survey instruments. Eighteen different studies evaluated the reliability and/or validity of four different sleepiness survey instruments. None of the retained studies reported sensitivity or specificity. Evidence quality was rated as very low across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, limited evidence of the reliability and validity of 14 different survey instruments to assess the fatigue and/or sleepiness status of EMS personnel and related shift worker groups was identified.

Effects of Napping During Shift Work on Sleepiness and Performance in Emergency Medical Services Personnel and Similar Shift Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Scheduled napping during work shifts may be an effective way to mitigate fatigue-related risk. This study aimed to critically review and synthesize existing literature on the impact of scheduled naps on fatigue-related outcomes for EMS personnel and similar shift worker groups. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed of the impact of a scheduled nap during shift work on EMS personnel or similar shift workers. The primary (critical) outcome of interest was EMS personnel safety. Secondary (important) outcomes were patient safety; personnel performance; acute states of fatigue, alertness, and sleepiness; indicators of sleep duration and/or quality; employee retention/turnover; indicators of long-term health; and cost to the system. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of napping on a measure of personnel performance (the psychomotor vigilance test [PVT]) and measures of acute fatigue. RESULTS: Of 4,660 unique records identified, 13 experimental studies were determined relevant and summarized. The effect of napping on reaction time measured at the end of shift was small and non-significant (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.36; p = 0.34). Napping during work did not change reaction time from the beginning to the end of the shift (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -25.0 to 0.24; p = 0.96). Naps had a moderate, significant effect on sleepiness measured at the end of shift (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72; p = 0.01). The difference in sleepiness from the start to the end of shift was moderate and statistically significant (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature indicated that scheduled naps at work improved performance and decreased fatigue in shift workers. Further research is required to identify the optimal timing and duration of scheduled naps to maximize the beneficial outcomes.

Shorter Versus Longer Shift Durations to Mitigate Fatigue and Fatigue-Related Risks in Emergency Medical Services Personnel and Related Shift Workers: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This study comprehensively reviewed the literature on the impact of shorter versus longer shifts on critical and important outcomes for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and related shift worker groups. METHODS: Six databases (e.g., PubMed/MEDLINE) were searched, including one website. This search was guided by a research question developed by an expert panel a priori and registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (2016:CRD42016040099). The critical outcomes of interest were patient safety and personnel safety. The important outcomes of interest were personnel performance, acute fatigue, sleep and sleep quality, retention/turnover, long-term health, burnout/stress, and cost to system. Screeners worked independently and full-text articles were assessed for relevance. Data abstracted from the retained literature were categorized as favorable, unfavorable, mixed/inconclusive, or no impact toward the shorter shift duration. This research characterized the evidence as very low, low, moderate, or high quality according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: The searched yielded n = 21,674 records. Of the 480 full-text articles reviewed, 100 reported comparisons of outcomes of interest by shift duration. We identified 24 different shift duration comparisons, most commonly 8 hours versus 12 hours. No one study reported findings for all 9 outcomes. Two studies reported findings linked to both critical outcomes of patient and personnel safety, 34 reported findings for one of two critical outcomes, and 64 did not report findings for critical outcomes. Fifteen studies were grouped to compare shifts <24 hours versus shifts ≥24 hours. None of the findings for the critical outcomes of patient and personnel safety were categorized as unfavorable toward shorter duration shifts (<24 hours). Nine studies were favorable toward shifts <24 hours for at least one of the 7 important outcomes, while findings from one study were categorized as unfavorable. Evidence quality was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of existing evidence on the impact of shift duration on fatigue and fatigue-related risks is low or very low. Despite these limitations, this systematic review suggests that for outcomes considered critical or important to EMS personnel, shifts <24 hours in duration are more favorable than shifts ≥24 hours.