Impact of room service on nutritional intake, plate and production waste, meal quality and patient satisfaction and meal costs: A single site pre‐post evaluation

Abstract

This study aimed to compare nutritional intake, waste, patient satisfaction, meal costs and meal quality between a bought-in, thaw-retherm foodservice model and a cook-fresh, on-demand room service model at a large tertiary public hospital. Methods: A retrospective analysis of quality assurance data compared thawretherm to room service. Nutritional intake and plate waste were measured using a visual intake analysis tool; production waste was measured using weighted analysis methodology; patient satisfaction was measured using a validated patient satisfaction survey; meal quality was assessed using a validated meal quality audit tool, and meal costs were obtained from hospital finance reports. Independent sample t-tests or nonparametric equivalent (Mann-Whitney U-test) for continuous variables and Pearson's Chi-square for categorical data were applied for comparative purposes.Results: Average energy and protein intake, as well as percentage requirements met, improved between thaw-retherm and room service (4320 kJ/day vs 7265 kJ/day; 42.4 g/day vs 82.5 g/day; and 46% vs 80.7%; 49.9% vs 98.4%; all P < .001. Reductions in plate waste (40% vs 15%) and production waste (15% vs 5.6%, P < .001) were observed and food costs decreased by 9% with room service. Meal quality audit results improved, and patient satisfaction increased with % respondents satisfied increasing from 75.0% to 89.8% (χ 2 9.985[2]; P = .007) for room service.

Qualitative analysis of the implementation of a hospital room service in a large metropolitan hospital: foundations for transformation

“…(14)(15)(16)(17)(18) Ensuring the technology was able to generate data to support accurate and e cient foodservice delivery as well as process and outcomes evaluation to demonstrate the ongoing value proposition, in uence on Patient Reported nutrition Experience Measures (nPREMS), organisational and wider system advantages, was a key factor that was considered foundational to a successful room service implementation. (12) Early stakeholder engagement is not only required as a foundation for transformation, but to inform cyclical, iterative co-designed change processes. (19)(20)(21)(22)(23) Our ndings con rm that engagement is a key component of navigating implementation.…”

“…Evaluations have investigated the impact of room service on food waste and costs, patients’ nutritional intake, patient satisfaction and meal quality standards 12 . The aim of this study was to identify the barriers and enablers to implementing room service to provide recommendations to inform dissemination and scalability.…”

“…A suite of evaluations were administered to investigate the impact of Room Service on key clinical outcomes including food waste and costs, patients' nutritional intake, patient satisfaction and meal quality standards. (12) In addition to the clearly documented bene ts of the Room Service model, it is important to articulate and de ne barriers and enablers that may enhance or prevent the model's adoption to inform future dissemination and scalability. Careful exploration of the experiences and perceptions of those who have recently implemented a transformation to Room Service will yield valuable insights to inform and support both successful sustainability and spread into new sites.…”

Innovation in Healthy and Sustainable Food Product Development for Health and Aged Care: A Scoping Review

“…The inclusion of only one study in this review considering the health and sustainability of foods and food systems within health and aged care was surprising [ 19 ] as this has been a focus internationally [ 33 , 34 , 35 ] and locally [ 36 , 37 ] within Australia. There are significant market opportunities for the food industry to meet projected increasing demands for healthy and sustainable food products and practices.…”

Evidence as foundation of practice

“…It has become much more common for research to be included in the job description for a clinical dietitian, and for routine hospital quality improvement projects to be conducted by dietitians to a rigorous standard that allows for valid analysis and publication. Two such examples can be seen in this issue, where Utter et al 1 analysed a hospital staff health survey to identify ways to improve the food retail service, and Neaves et al 2 conducted a detailed evaluation of a change in their hospital's food service system, assessing multiple quality dimensions and quantifying the benefits of a more patient‐centred approach to meal ordering. Being able to share their findings by the publication of this study means that the authors' work will have an impact beyond the quality reporting in their own hospital.…”