Long and irregular shifts are a daily reality for many healthcare workers, often leaving them exhausted and under pressure. For nurses and care staff juggling night work, short rest periods and demanding workloads, even small changes to schedules can shape how they feel at work and at home. New research from Finland suggests that a digital tool designed to improve shift planning may slightly reduce stress among individual workers, even if wider effects remain limited. The findings were published in Applied Ergonomics.
The study examined whether an ergonomic shift schedule evaluation tool could improve employee well-being in the public healthcare sector. Researchers analysed data from more than 7,000 social and healthcare workers across hospitals and municipal services, linking staff survey responses with objective working time records from scheduling software .
Shift work has long been associated with poorer sleep, fatigue and a higher risk of physical and mental health problems. In healthcare, these pressures are compounded by staffing shortages and the need to provide round the clock care. The Finnish tool was built into existing scheduling software and offered visual feedback to shift planners, highlighting potentially harmful patterns such as very short recovery times between shifts.
Researchers compared wards where planners used the tool with those where it was not used. At the ward level, they found no clear differences in overall wellbeing outcomes such as perceived health, work ability or sleep problems. This suggests that introducing the tool alone does not automatically transform working conditions across entire teams.
At the individual level, however, the picture was slightly different. Employees whose shift planners had used the evaluation tool showed a modest but statistically meaningful reduction in psychological distress at follow up. Around 26% of workers in the intervention group reported distress, compared with about 28% in the control group. The effect was most apparent among municipal healthcare employees, where planners tended to spend more time using the tool.
The findings point to a subtle benefit rather than a dramatic change. The authors note that in many wards the tool was used only briefly, sometimes for just a minute over the course of a year. In hospital settings especially, planners spent far less time reviewing schedules than their counterparts in municipal services, limiting the potential impact.
Another factor is that the tool focuses on correcting the most hazardous shift patterns, which affect a relatively small proportion of staff. In practice, this means improvements may be concentrated among a few individuals rather than spread evenly across a ward. Broader wellbeing gains may require more consistent use, alongside organisational support that prioritises recovery time and sustainable workloads.
The study adds to growing evidence that smarter shift design can play a role in protecting mental health at work. While technology alone is not a solution to stress at work, tools that help planners spot risky patterns may support healthier schedules when used rigorously and backed by clear workplace policies.
For healthcare systems under strain, the message is cautious but hopeful. Digital scheduling tools may help reduce stress for some staff, but real change is likely to depend on how seriously organisations commit to using them.