Exploring hospital patients' satisfaction with cook‐chill foodservice systems: a preliminary study using a validated questionnaire

Abstract

Decline in nutritional status during hospitalisation highlights the importance of achieving high‐quality foodservice. This research aimed to explore patient satisfaction with hospital foodservices from on‐site and off‐site cook‐chill production systems. Two cross‐sectional surveys of hospital inpatients were conducted in an acute medical and a subacute rehabilitation ward before and after a change to off‐site cook‐chill production. The survey used a validated instrument (Acute Care Hospital Foodservice Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire). Sixty‐six patients in 2006 and 51 patients in 2007 recorded unchanged results across factors of food quality, staffing service quality, meal service quality and physical environment quality. Satisfaction with foodservice was rated ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by the majority of patients in both surveys. The research instrument was able to deconstruct various issues relating to patients' satisfaction and six individual items correlated with overall satisfaction with foodservice. To maximise patient satisfaction, further research into these, and additional dimensions of foodservice quality is needed to determine how improvements may be achieved.

A Systematic Review of Hospital Foodservice Patient Satisfaction Studies

“…15 The same questionnaire was used to monitor the foodservice, without major change across three times (scores always >4 in all four dimensions, namely food and meal service quality, staff, and environment), 34 whereas scores were lower (most of them 3) in two surveys in the same institution carried out to evaluate a model where food is cooked and then rethermalized. 37 In this last article, categorical data were also provided, with around 80% of "good/very good" ratings and only 2% to 3% of "poor/very poor" satisfaction. 37 An Italian study 40 was the only one to report the odds ratio of satisfaction, which was mainly influenced by food quality (odds ratio 17.2; P<0.001), followed by meal service quality (odds ratio 4.7; P<0.001).…”

“…37 In this last article, categorical data were also provided, with around 80% of "good/very good" ratings and only 2% to 3% of "poor/very poor" satisfaction. 37 An Italian study 40 was the only one to report the odds ratio of satisfaction, which was mainly influenced by food quality (odds ratio 17.2; P<0.001), followed by meal service quality (odds ratio 4.7; P<0.001).…”

“…16,[18][19][20]22,36,37 The new systems were similar to a hotel room service. Patients ordered meals from an extended choice menu approximately 2 hours before meal service.…”

“…Twelve studies had a sample size <200 patients; 14,16,[20][21][22]27,28,[35][36][37][38][39] 10 studies had a sample size between 200 and 600 patients, 15,17,18,24,25,[29][30][31][32]34 and nine studies a sample size >600 patients. 3,11,13,19,23,26,29,33,40 Subjects were mostly inpatients, but in some studies discharged patients 11,14,15,21 or outpatients 21 were involved as well.…”

“…Seven studies used questionnaires consisting of fewer than 10 items, 16,19,22,23,28,32,33 11 studies used questionnaires with 10 to 20 items, 3,11,15,17,18,20,24,25,26,34,37 and four studies used questionnaires consisting of more than 20 items. 4,13,35,40 Only one study did not report the number of items on the questionnaire.…”