And that makes sense, but only if there are enough breaks and downtime in between, and probably not if the doctors hasten from one patient to the other.

Could you link the studies?

I would agree, assuming the patient workload is appropriate, I think it all depends on how busy the place is. I've chosen to do 24 hour ER shifts instead of 2 12-hour shifts in a place that would see about 1-1.25 patients per hour, mostly during the day so I would usually get 2-6 hours sleep overnight. But in a busier place, I would much rather work a 12, 10 or 8 hour shift as the intensity increases, say to 2-3 patients per hour. And the case mix also matters a lot, if you have a bunch of patients with coughs and colds, or minor injuries, you can see 4 an hour easily, if everyone is a demented nursing home patient or requires a translator, seeing 2 / hour might be crazy hard.

That's strange as you would expect quality to suffer in every single respect when forced to work inhumane conditions. I would find a different mechanic if I thought the one I was considering was miserable from being overworked. Was there an explanation for why outcomes improved? Perhaps it is necessary to look into who conducts these studies as I imagine someone up the ladder profits greatly from having 1 doctor do the job of 2.

That answers the wrong question.

Source?