4.1 Article

Engaging food service providers to change food service practices in aged care facilities

Journal

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 381-389

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12442

Keywords

focus groups; food services; personal satisfaction; qualitative research; quality of life; workforce

Funding

  1. Maggie Beer Foundation (MBF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimThe present study describes the impact of a novel education program for food service staff from Australian aged care facilities (ACF) to facilitate improvements in food service practices. The purpose was to explore; (i) the impact of the intervention (ii) barriers and facilitators of the program from food service providers' perspectives and (iii) make program planning and practice recommendations. MethodsParticipants completed pre- and post-program questionnaires, attended two focus groups on program process and impact and 4months later reported through individual interviews on changes they had implemented. Results were triangulated between the questionnaires, focus groups and interviews and impacts and outcomes identified through directed content analysis. ResultsThirty senior-level chefs and a cook participated from 27 ACF from Victoria, Australia. Participation impacted on the menu, dining experiences and food service practices. All of the participants were enacting changes in their workplace 4months later as change agents. A focus on skilling the participants as change agents', brokering ongoing peer-support and the celebrity and/or expert status of the facilitators were attributed to the success of the intervention. ConclusionsThis novel intervention empowered Victorian food service providers to make positive changes in ACF. Further research is required to measure if these self-reported changes are sustainable and relevant to other facilities and to establish the effect on food experience, satisfaction and well-being of residents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available