4.5 Article

Improving the provision of meals in hospital. The patients' viewpoint

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 181-185

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2009.10.005

Keywords

Hospital meals; Patients' meals; NHS; Patients' perceptions; Food service management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This Study examines the provision of hospital meals from the patients' viewpoint, with the aim of improving hospital food service. Patients were approached in early 2008 in a National Health Service hospital in the South of England and invited to comment on the good and bad aspects of eating in hospital. Comments were collected in an abbreviated key word format which incurred the minimum of bias and allowed emergent themes to be analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Seven main themes emerged, of which food and choice were mentioned most frequently, but had a low ratio (1.8 and 1.7, respectively) of approving over disapproving comments. The next most mentioned theme, service staff, showed the highest approving/disapproving ratio (4.8) overall. Less frequent themes were: meals and lifestyle, timing and routine, service quality and food quantity. These data, together with qualitative analysis of the responses showed patients' views of hospital food to be positive, on the whole meeting Or Surpassing their expectations. However, these expectations were low, the experience of eating in hospital contrasted unfavourably with home, and the meals were at best a distraction from the rigours Of hospital treatment. Service staff were positively regarded because they offered an important opportunity for normal discourse with a non-medical person. On the basis of the findings, changes are recommended in the management of service staff, menus, food presentation, nutritional intake and patients' lifestyle. Of these, the first is likely to have most impact on the experience and viewpoint of hospital patients. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available