Jennifer Ellick, Alice Pashley, Danielle Cave, Oliver Nelson, Olivia Wright
{"title":"'On-Demand' snack service in a rehabilitation setting: Impact on satisfaction, intake, waste and costs.","authors":"Jennifer Ellick, Alice Pashley, Danielle Cave, Oliver Nelson, Olivia Wright","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate an 'On-Demand' snack service in a rehabilitation setting for satisfaction, intake, waste and cost.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In September 2021, a trial of an 'On-Demand' snack service was conducted on two general rehabilitation wards in a purpose-built rehabilitation hospital. A retrospective comparison of pre-implementation, 1-month and 8-month post-implementation audit data was used to evaluate staff and patient satisfaction, nutritional intake, waste and cost (labour and food). Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed for intake quantitative data and content analysis was conducted for qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 responses from staff and 34 from patients were received. Staff reported higher overall satisfaction with the 'tea-trolley' service (50% vs. 32%; χ<sup>2</sup> 6.815 [2]; p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction ratings of the original 'tea-trolley' system were higher than the 'On-Demand' snacks system (96% vs. 59%; χ<sup>2</sup> 41.60 [2]; p < 0.0001). Median daily intake from snack food and drinks was maintained (938 kJ and 6 g protein vs. 925 kJ and 6 g protein) and waste (23.3% vs. 20.9%; p < 0.05) decreased with the 'On-Demand' service. Cost of ordered food was similar ($778.15 'tea-trolley' vs. $746.1 'On-Demand'), however cost of waste ($179.47 'tea-trolley' vs. $128.7 'On-Demand') and labour ($1650.46 'tea-trolley' vs. $926.44 'On-Demand') reduced by 28% and 44%, respectively, with the 'On-Demand' snack service.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementing an 'On-Demand' snack service in the general inpatient rehabilitation setting resulted in reductions in food waste, foodservice staff labour and waste costs, while intake was maintained. Patient and staff satisfaction decreased warranting further investigation into appropriate implementation methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":"454-463"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12881","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate an 'On-Demand' snack service in a rehabilitation setting for satisfaction, intake, waste and cost.
Methods: In September 2021, a trial of an 'On-Demand' snack service was conducted on two general rehabilitation wards in a purpose-built rehabilitation hospital. A retrospective comparison of pre-implementation, 1-month and 8-month post-implementation audit data was used to evaluate staff and patient satisfaction, nutritional intake, waste and cost (labour and food). Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed for intake quantitative data and content analysis was conducted for qualitative data.
Results: A total of 26 responses from staff and 34 from patients were received. Staff reported higher overall satisfaction with the 'tea-trolley' service (50% vs. 32%; χ2 6.815 [2]; p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction ratings of the original 'tea-trolley' system were higher than the 'On-Demand' snacks system (96% vs. 59%; χ2 41.60 [2]; p < 0.0001). Median daily intake from snack food and drinks was maintained (938 kJ and 6 g protein vs. 925 kJ and 6 g protein) and waste (23.3% vs. 20.9%; p < 0.05) decreased with the 'On-Demand' service. Cost of ordered food was similar ($778.15 'tea-trolley' vs. $746.1 'On-Demand'), however cost of waste ($179.47 'tea-trolley' vs. $128.7 'On-Demand') and labour ($1650.46 'tea-trolley' vs. $926.44 'On-Demand') reduced by 28% and 44%, respectively, with the 'On-Demand' snack service.
Conclusion: Implementing an 'On-Demand' snack service in the general inpatient rehabilitation setting resulted in reductions in food waste, foodservice staff labour and waste costs, while intake was maintained. Patient and staff satisfaction decreased warranting further investigation into appropriate implementation methods.
期刊介绍:
Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.