4.4 Article

Hospital inpatients' experiences of access to food: a qualitative interview and observational study

期刊

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 294-303

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00495.x

关键词

access to services; food service; hospital; hunger; patient experience; qualitative

资金

  1. Guy's and St Thomas' Charity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hospital surveys indicate that overall patients are satisfied with hospital food. However undernutrition is common and associated with a number of negative clinical outcomes. There is little information regarding food access from the patients' perspective. Purpose To examine in-patients' experiences of access to food in hospitals. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 48 patients from eight acute wards in two London teaching hospitals. Responses were coded and analysed thematically using NVivo. Results Most patients were satisfied with the quality of the meals, which met their expectations. Almost half of the patients reported feeling hungry during their stay and identified a variety of difficulties in accessing food. These were categorized as: organizational barriers (e.g. unsuitable serving times, menus not enabling informed decision about what food met their needs, inflexible ordering systems); physical barriers (not in a comfortable position to eat, food out of reach, utensils or packaging presenting difficulties for eating); and environmental factors (e.g. staff interrupting during mealtimes, disruptive and noisy behaviour of other patients, repetitive sounds or unpleasant smells). Surgical and elderly patients and those with physical disabilities experienced greatest difficulty accessing food, whereas younger patients were more concerned about choice, timing and the delivery of food. Conclusions Hospital in-patients often experienced feeling hungry and having difficulty accessing food. These problems generally remain hidden because staff fail to notice and because patients are reluctant to request assistance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据