Adolescentes sin inserción escolar al ingreso y asistiendo

11 Hospitals in Trent and West Midland

%

Hospitals

11 Hospitals

Chapter Six

123

Among the hospitals, hospitals E and I have larger food waste compared with others. Hospital E is a maternity hospital. Female patients were found to have statistically higher food waste compared to males. Hospital I has been using a set menu, probably contributing to higher food waste. These characteristics differentiated these two from the other 9 hospital food services.

55.8 % of all surveyed patients indicated that they left food. Table 6.12 shows the reasons why patients left their food in hospital. There is a big difference between male and female patients, showing that 'too big portion size' is the primary reason for female patients for leaving their food in hospital whereas male patients indicated 'low appetite' as the main reason.

T-tests on both the total 'Satisfaction' scores of patients and their ratings on 'size'

of meals in the hospital indicated that patients who reportedly left their meals gave significantly lower rating on both measures, compared with those who did not. Thus, dissatisfaction with served meals appears to contribute to patients not finishing their meals.

'Too big portion size' would discourage many of the patients from finishing their meals. Thus the selection of portion size should appear on the menu card and be strictly followed when serving food in the kitchen. Better training of food service workers in preparing tasty food, ensuring that food is neither overcooked nor undercooked, and that food is served hot are shown to be important.

<Table 6.12> The Reasons for Leaving food in 12 Hospitals

Reasons Total Female Male

<;--- % --->

Low Appetite 31.5 26.9 40.5

Too big portion size 25.5 28.9 19.1

Food is not tasty 18.6 19.5 16.9

Food is too overcooked 11.7 12.5 10.1

or undercooked

Food is not hot enough 7.3 6.7 8.4

Others 5.4 5.5 5.0

Chapter Six

124

6.5 Measures of Influencing Variables

The framework discussed in Chapter 4 grouped the influencing variables into two major categories: human resources and system resources.

Measures and methods of collecting the data were presented in Chapter 4 and 5. Findings are discussed under each category.

6.5.1 Human resources

Included under human resources were ratio of full-time staff to part-time staff, ratio of supervisors to staff, labour cost, staff satisfaction with pay and staff satisfaction with promotional opportunities. Formulas used to calculate the data were explained in Chapter 4. Means, standard deviations and range of scores for human resource variables for the 12 hospitals are presented in Table 6.13.

<Table 6.13> Mean, Standard Deviation and Range for Human Resource

Variables in 12 Hospital Food Service Systems

Variables * Mean S.D. Range

The full-time staff ratio ranged from 20.0% to 89.7% with a mean of 40.6% and a standard deviation of 19.7. The ranges in this study were less than those reported in similar studies. Ruf in 1975 reported a full-time ratio of 68.9% for all food service employees in 25 hospitals in U.S.A.

Full-time staff ratio (%)

Supervisor ratio (Vo)

Labour cost (£)

Satisfaction score with pay

40.6 19.7 20.0-89.7

13.1 5.0 4.1-20.5

1.60 0.55 0.71- 2.48

8.1 1.9 5.8-11.0

Satisfaction score with

Chapter Six

125

The range in supervisor ratio was from 4.1% to 20.5% with a mean of 13.1% and a standard deviation of 5.0.

The range in labour cost was from £0.71 to £2.48 with a mean of £1.60 and a standard deviation of 0.55.

The index of staff satisfaction with pay ranged from 5.8 to 11.0 with a mean of 8.1 and a standard deviation of 1.9. The range of employees satisfaction with promotion opportunities within the food service department was from to 5.1 to

10.9 with a mean of 7.6 and a standard deviation of 1.7. In 1975 Ruf found a similarly low perception of pay and promotional opportunities. Means of satisfaction with pay were 12.9 for males and 12.4 for females and means for promotion were 10.9 for males and 11.3 for females. No attempt was made to measure whether promotional opportunities did or did not exist within the food service departments.

6.5.2 System Resources

Table 6.14 shows means, standard deviations and range of scores for system resource variables.

<Table 6.14> Mean, Standard Deviation and Range for System Resource Variables in 12 Hospital Food Service Systems

Variables Mean S.D. Range Meal equivalents 7551 5852 2154 -19209

Food & Consumables cost (£) 0.97 0.31 0.51- 1.44

Number of menu items 246 96 94 - 413

Non-patient meal ratio (%) 36.2 8.9 17.3 - 47.2

Modified meal ratio (%) 11.8 5.4 1.8 -19.0

Catering function ratio (%) 8.0 6.2 0.6-20.4

Number of patients 208 104 85 - 480

Bed capacity 300 105 105 - 495

Occupancy rate (%)

Chapter Six

126

Meal equivalents served per week was in the wide range 2,154 to 19,209 with a mean of 7,551 and a standard deviation of 5,852.

The range in food and consumables costs per meal equivalent was from £0.51 to £1.44 with a mean of £0.97 and a standard deviation 0.31. A wide range and standard deviation in the number of menu items served was noted in the 12 hospital food service systems studied. Total menu items served within one-week span ranged from 94 to 413 with a mean of 246 and a standard deviation of 96. The non-patient meal ratio ranged from 17.3% to 47.2% with a mean of 36.2% and a standard deviation of 8.9. The modified meal ratio comprised 1.8% to 19.0% of the meals served with a mean of 11.8% and a standard deviation of 5.4. The range of the catering function ratio in the hospitals surveyed was from 0.6 to 20.4 with a mean of 8.0 and a standard deviation of 6.2. The range for number of total patients was 85 to 480 with a mean of 208 and a standard deviation of 104. The range in the size of the unit in terms of bed capacity was from 105 - 495 with a mean of 300 and a standard deviation of 105.

At the time the data were collected, many hospitals in Trent Region and West Midland Region were experiencing high occupancy rates. Occupancy rate ranged from 62.0% to 100.0% with a mean of 77.8% and a standard deviation of 13.0. The percentage of subsidy to patients meals by the income from various catering functions ranged from 0.0% to 100.0%, with a mean of 10.0% and a standard deviation of 28.9.

CHAPTER SEVEN : STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF