Emily Vautour Dietetic Intern, 2007-2008

       Introduction Procedures and Methods Results Discussion Limitations to the Study Conclusion References

 ◦ ◦ ◦ The Cornwall Community Hospital (CCH) 170 bed acute care hospital Foodservice department of approx. 24 FTE Non-selective one-week cycle menu

 Providing patients with a means to communicate food preferences to foodservices has been associated with increased patient satisfaction with regards to food and foodservices Folio et al. 2002; Stein 2000; Oyarzun et al. 2000; Schwartz & Gudzin 2000  Relationship between availability of a food preference form and food wastage Unpublished study conducted by 2006-2007 dietetic intern at CCH

 To evaluate the possibility of improving patient satisfaction through food preferences for a non-selective hospital menu

 ◦ ◦ Comparing patient satisfaction survey results from 2 groups: Group 1 – did not get a chance to communicate food preferences Group 2 – were offered a chance to communicate food preferences through a Food Preferences Form

GROUP 1 Day 1 Tue Day 2 We Day 3 Thu Patient Satisfaction Survey Distribution Day 4 Fri Day 5 Sat Day 6 Sun Day 7 Mo Day 8 Tue Day 9 We Day 10 Thu Day 11 Fri Day 12 Sat Day 13 Sun Day 14 Mo Food Preference Form Distribution Patient Satisfaction Survey Distribution GROUP 2

Greatly exceeded expectations Exceeded expectations Met expectations Did not meet expectations GROUP 1 Appearance of the meal Flavor and taste of the food 29.03

10.71

22.58

48.39

0 35.71

50 3.57

GROUP 2 Appearance of the meal Flavor and taste of the food 55.56

55.56

11.11

22.22

11.11

11.11

22.22

11.11

*Results are presented by the percentage of the total number of respondents for each variable and group

Greatly exceeded expectations Exceeded expectations Met expectations Did not meet expectations GROUP 1 Food temperature Choices available 23.33

25 50 26.67

0 20.83

41.67

12.5

GROUP 2 Food temperature Choices available 66.67

55.56

22.22

11.11

0 0 33.33

11.11

*Results are presented by the percentage of the total number of respondents for each variable and group

Greatly exceeded expectations Exceeded expectations Met expectations Did not meet expectations Did you receive what was ordered 25 GROUP 1 Courtesy of the person delivering the food 43.33

25 33.33

16.67

40 16.67

0 Quality of the food 23.33

30 46.67

0 Did you receive what was ordered 57.14

GROUP 2 Courtesy of the person delivering the food 77.78

0 14.29

28.57

22.22

0 0 Quality of the food 55.56

11.11

22.22

11.11

*Results are presented by the percentage of the total number of respondents for each variable and group

  ◦ ◦ ◦ The importance of patient satisfaction ◦ ◦ Role in achieving overall facility goals Influencing patients’ nutritional status Barriers in achieving patient satisfaction Negative, stereotypical attitude Perception of hospital food influenced by illness and medications Repetitiveness of the non-selective seven-day cycle menu

 ◦ ◦ Non-selective menu vs. patient-focused foodservice system Deciding factors for keeping the non-selective menu system for the study  Limited time frame  Cost associated with the transition  Lots of planning Addition of a Food Preference form was more practical in terms of time and cost

   Small sample size of Group 2 Appropriateness of Patient Satisfaction Survey Some patients from Group 1 seen by RD for food preferences prior to start of study

   Upward trend observed, however not statistically significant Existing barriers to achieving patient satisfaction ◦ ◦ Other possible benefits of having the Food Preference Form Faster response to patients’ requests Less of RD’s time used for dealing with food preferences

Bélanger MC & Dubé L. The emotional experience of hospitalization: Its moderators and its role in patient satisfaction with foodservices. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1996:96:354-360 Cardello AV, Bell R, & Kramer FM. Attitudes of consumers toward military and other institutional foods. Food Quality and Preference. 1996:7(1):7-20 Donini LM, Castellaneta E, De Guglielmi S et al. Improvement in the quality of the catering service of a rehabilitation hospital. Clinical Nutrition. 2008:27(1):105-114.

Folio D, O’Sullivan-Maillet J & Touger-Decker R. The spoken menu concept of patient foodservice delivery systems increases overall patient satisfaction, therapeutic and tray accuracy, and is cost neutral for food and labor. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2002:102(4):546-548.

Huang HC & Shanklin CW. An integrated model to measure service management and physical constraints’ effect on food consumption in assisted-living facilities. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2008:108:785-792.

Lafferty L & Dowling RA. Position of The American Dietetic Association: management of health care food and nutrition services. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1997:97(12):1427-1430.

Oyarzun VE, Lafferty LJ, Gregoire, MB et al. Evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness measurements of a foodservice system that included a spoken menu. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2000:100(4):460-463.

Petnicki PJ, Jatho GJ & McNamee CK. Benefits of a just-in-time spoken patient menu.Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1998:98(9):(Suppl.1) Pronsky ZM. Food-Medication Interactions, 14 Schwartz DB & Gudzin D. Preadmission nutrition screening: Expanding hospital-based nutrition services by implementing earlier nutrition intervention. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2000:100(1):81-87.

Smith KR. How to satisfy preferences of rehab residents in a nonselect menu facility. Health Care Food & Nutrition Focus. 2003:20(6):8-9.

Sridhar MK & Lean MEJ. Nutritional consequences of disease. Medicine. 2006:34(12):530-532.

Stanga Z, Zurflüh Y, Roselli M et al. Hospital Food: a survey of patients’ perceptions. Clinical Nutrition. 2003:23(3):241-246 2000:100(5):512.

th ed. Birchrunville: Food-Medication Interactions, 2006.

Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing. 1998:15(3):183-9.