Improving the provision of meals in hospital. The patients’ viewpoint
Abstract
This study examines the provision of hospital meals from the patients' viewpoint, with the aim of improving hospital food service. Patients were approached in early 2008 in a National Health Service hospital in the South of England and invited to comment on the good and bad aspects of eating in hospital. Comments were collected in an abbreviated "key word" format which incurred the minimum of bias and allowed emergent themes to be analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Seven main themes emerged, of which "food" and "choice" were mentioned most frequently, but had a low ratio (1.8 and 1.7, respectively) of approving over disapproving comments. The next most mentioned theme, "service staff", showed the highest approving/disapproving ratio (4.8) overall. Less frequent themes were: "meals and lifestyle", "timing and routine", "service quality" and "food quantity". These data, together with qualitative analysis of the responses showed patients' views of hospital food to be positive, on the whole meeting or surpassing their expectations. However, these expectations were low, the experience of eating in hospital contrasted unfavourably with home, and the meals were at best a distraction from the rigours of hospital treatment. Service staff were positively regarded because they offered an important opportunity for "normal" discourse with a non-medical person. On the basis of the findings, changes are recommended in the management of service staff, menus, food presentation, n…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Qualitative studies took account of patients' perception of meals or motivation to eat.
“Qualitative studies took 676 account of patients' perception of meals [57, 58] or motivation to eat [59].”
From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [57]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition
Thibault, R., Abbasoglu, O., Ioannou, E., Meija, L., Ottens-Oussoren, K., Pichard, C., Rothenberg, E., Rubin, D., Siljamäki-Ojansuu, U., Vaillant, M.-F., et al. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.09.039 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
- Authors
- Johns, N., Hartwell, H., & Morgan, M.
- Affiliations
- Bournemouth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Johns, Nick
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 181-185
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073963185
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Appetite (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
- Keywords
- hospital food service, hospital food, patient perspectives, food choice, service employees, food presentation, menu design, nutritional intake, patient experience, hospital food quality, service quality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diet, Emotions, England, Female, Food Preferences, Food Service, Hospital, Humans, Length of Stay, Life Style, Male, Menu Planning, Middle Aged, Perception, Professional-Patient Relations, Hospital-Patient Relations, Patient Satisfaction, Age Distribution, Health Care Surveys
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review