Hospital foodservice: a comparative analysis of systems and introducing
the ‘Steamplicity’ concept
J.S.A. EDWARDS AND H.J. HARTWELL The Worshipful Company of Cooks
Research Centre, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB
Corresponding author: Heather Hartwell, Tel: 01202 595585 e-mail:
Key words: institution, satisfaction, wastage, food intake
Word count: 7,060
This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and it has not been submitted
simultaneously for publication elsewhere.
Patient meals are an integral part of treatment hence the provision and consumption of a
balanced diet, essential to aid recovery. A number of food service systems are used to
provide meals but recently, the ‘Steamplicity’ concept has been introduced. This seeks,
through the application of a static, extended choice menu, revised patient ordering
procedures, new cooking processes and individual patient food cooked at ward level, to
address some of the current hospital food service concerns.
The purpose of this study was to directly compare selected aspects (food wastage at
ward level; satisfaction with systems and food provided) of a traditional cook-chill food
service operation against ‘Steamplicity’. Results indicate that patients preferred the
‘Steamplicty’ system in all areas: food choice, ordering, delivery, food quality and
overall. Wastage was considerably less with the ‘Steamplicity’ system; although care
must be taken to ensure that poor operating procedures do not negate this advantage.
When the total weight of food consumed in the ward at each meal is divided by the
number of main courses served, results show that at lunch, mean intake with the cook-
chill system was 202g whilst that for the ‘Steamplicity’ system was 282g and for the
evening meal, 226g compared with 310g.
Patient meals are an integral part of hospital treatment and the consumption of a
balanced diet, crucial to aid recovery (Stratton et al, 2006). Even so, it is well
established that up to 40% of patients may be undernourished on admittance to hospital;
a situation which is not always rectified during their stay (McWhirter and Pennington,
1994). The relevance and importance of patient meal service, when compared with
many clinical activities is not always appreciated and it is often seen as an area where
budgetary cuts will have least impact. This is particularly so as nursing staff are under
pressure to follow a medical/technical model of healthcare rather than one focused on
the fundamentals of nursing. Rapid turnover of patients also prioritises clinical
considerations. The provision of a foodservice system that optimises patient food and
nutrient intake together with minimising waste, in the most cost effective manner, is
therefore seen as essential.
Previous research has shown that food preference and acceptance constitutes 50% of the
variability in consumption (Cardello et al, 1996), and is not only a result of the intrinsic
quality of the food; but can also be related to consumer expectations and the degree to
which the food item matches them (Oh, 2000). Sensory characteristics, such as
appearance, flavour, texture and temperature have been found to be most important to
hospital patients when judging food quality (Clark, 1998). Temperature and texture are
key attributes of hospital food that have been shown to indicate patient satisfaction with
the food as served (Hartwell, 2004) with the temperature of hot food an area of patient
dissatisfaction and a regular cause for complaint (Stanga et al, 2003). It should therefore
be the goal of any hospital food service manager to prepare, distribute and serve safe
food of defined standards in respect of nutritional quality, balance, palatability and
temperature (Davis and Bristow, 1999).
Foodservice operations can be classified into three main styles (Jones and Lockwood,
1. Integrated foodservice systems: both food production and foodservice are carried
out as part of a single operation.
2. Food manufacturing systems: production of meals is separate from the service of
those meals, thus there is a decoupling of service from production, such as in
3. Food delivery systems: the operation involves little or no food production and
focuses only on the service of continuously assembled or regenerated meals.
Here there is decoupling and production lining.
This model can be developed and since the mid 1970s, a number of food production
system have been introduced which have sought to maintain current service levels but at
a reduced cost. These have included systems such as ‘Cook-Serve’, ‘Cook-Freeze’,
‘Cook-Chill’ and ‘Sous Vide’. More recently; the ‘Steamplicity’ concept has been
developed which has sought, through the use of a static, extended choice menu, revised
patient ordering procedures, new cooking processes and individual patient food cooked
at ward level, to address some of the current hospital foodservice concerns. Various
systems have been applied to increase profitability through bulk buying power, higher
productivity, better equipment utilisation and process control (Rogers, 2005). However,
selection is dependent on the environment and consumer profile, all physical, financial,
technological and operational issues need to be considered.
A cook-serve system is a ‘traditional’ catering operation where food is prepared and
cooked on site and distributed at the appropriate temperature to the wards, either already
plated or in bulk. This system allows for batch cooking which minimises hot-holding
and nutrient losses and optimises the food’s sensory characteristics as it can be prepared
close to the time required. However, in practice there can be a substantial time delay
between production and consumption as wards are often situated a long way from the
kitchens. The result is that many of the potential advantages are not realised.
In this system, food is cooked and held at a temperature of 70 - 750 C or more for at
least two minutes. Chilling occurs within 30 minutes of cooking and the temperature of
the food is reduced to 0-30C within 90 minutes. This temperature is maintained
throughout the storage and distribution cycle until regeneration occurs. Regeneration
can either be centrally controlled or carried out at ward level. However, a core
temperature of 70 - 750C must be reached for a minimum of 2 minutes for
microbiological reasons. In this system, dishes may be stored chilled for up to 5 days,
however, after reheating the food should be consumed immediately (Department of
Health, 1989). Advantages are higher efficiency and lower food costs based on bulk
buying and centralised purchasing while disadvantages number temperature control
which may compromise food safety and nutritional content (Hwang et al, 1999).
Sous vide is a variation of a cook-chill operation. Systems based upon large scale
production methods and the use of vacuum packaging, either before or after cooking, in
combination with the chilling techniques of cook-chill, were developed initially for the
institutional catering sector in Sweden (Schafheitle and Light, 1989).
Sous vide involves placing the food into heat stable, air and moisture high barrier plastic
bags or pouches. Air is then removed creating a vacuum with subsequent sealing of the
pouch. A pasteurising cooking process takes place followed by immediate rapid chilling
within 90 minutes to 0-30C. The product must then be stored within this temperature
range until required for consumption, but within five days of the date of production
(Department of Health, 1989). Both the quality and microbiological safety of sous vide
foods with extended shelf lives, requires good control and monitoring of critical points
throughout manufacture and distribution. The health risk of these products is small as
long as the temperature during storage is low (4±0.5°C) (Nissen et al, 2002).
This system is similar to cook-chill, except the food is frozen rather than chilled. After
cooking, dishes are blast-frozen to a temperature of –200C and kept at this temperature
until required. Storage at frozen temperatures can be more prolonged, for up to two
years. When required the food is defrosted and regenerated to a core temperature of at
least 70 - 750C (Department of Health, 1989). The disadvantage of this system is a loss
of texture owing to the freeze/thaw process involved and subsequent regeneration and
distribution to the wards (Hwang et al, 1999).
One of the most radical developments in hospital catering in recent years is the
introduction of this new technology which relies on a sealed pack incorporating a valve.
The food, both raw and partially cooked, is plated in a centralised production unit,
chilled (<5°C) and distributed to satellite kitchens where it remains chilled with an
expiry date currently of four days. As required, meals are heated/cooked individually in
a microwave to >75°C which allows patient choice at short notice and ensures better
quality food. A further advantage is the ability to control the cooking environment,
allowing consistent regeneration of the food with the right climate of moist heat, thus
avoiding drying out and therefore enhancing texture.
Comparison of Systems
Food temperature and texture are the statistically significant factors in the selection of a
system (Nettles et al, 1997) and also relate to patient satisfaction (Hartwell, 2004).
Notwithstanding, there is no agreement as to which system provides the best food
quality as in most cases, the effect is product specific (Rogers, 2005). It is suggested
that chilling is less damaging to texture and juiciness than freezing (Tansey et al, 2003)
while sous vide is superior in terms of vitamin retention but detrimental to sensory
quality (Church and Parsons, 2000; Pontin, 2005).
In all foodservice systems, food preparation and cooking can cause substantial and
unavoidable nutrient losses. The vitamins with the greatest losses during hot-holding of
food (> 10% after 2 hours) are vitamin C, folate, and vitamin B6; retinol, thiamin,
riboflavin and niacin appear to be relatively stable. Under normal operating conditions
with hot-holding limited to less than 90 minutes, vitamin retention is better in traditional
food service (cook-serve) than in a cook-chill system (Lawson et al., 1983). If chilled
food is stored for longer than 3 days or if food is held hot for long periods after bulk
reheating vitamin losses can be high (Williams, 1996; McErlain et al, 2001).
Traditional systems also give the opportunity for the patient to select portion size and to
decide if gravy is required with the meat. However, it has been suggested that menus
from hospitals using cook-chill systems provide a greater choice of hot menu items
(Williams, 2002) although, do not necessarily support improved dietary intake by
patients (McClelland and Williams, 2003). Cook-chill systems are more likely to have
trays delivered by food service employees whereas traditional food production systems,
where delivery is by trolley, tend to use nursing personnel (Jackson, 1997).
The traditional system of food production, cook-serve, is the most popular system used
in US medical food service (Silverman et al, 2000) and especially with smaller hospitals
(<100 beds) (Gledhill, 1993; Mibey and Williams, 2002). It is also considered by the
Audit Commission (2001) to be the cheapest at £2.20 per average spend compared to
£2.40 for a NHS operated cook-chill/freeze service. In Australia there has been a large
increase in the use of cook-chill systems from 5% in 1986 to 42% in 2001, despite the
fact that managers of such systems report lower levels of patient satisfaction (Williams,
2002). Conversely, other research has demonstrated little difference in satisfaction
between production systems (Edwards et al., 1998).
Increasingly in the U.K., a meal assembly foodservice system is being used where no
food preparation takes place on site, leaving the operation to focus on assembly,
regeneration and service. About a fifth of hospitals in the NHS operate in this way
purchasing meals from specialised food manufacturers (West, 2001). This trend looks
likely to continue as there is a cost implication. Contrary to the earlier assertion (Audit
Commission, 2001), Trusts that use the system of cook-serve may well spend more per
patient per day if overhead costs are included than those that buy in ready-made
(Deeming, 2002). However, vitamin C retention in vegetables in the meals assembly
system has been found to be between 17-80% for chilled vegetables and between 27-
83% for frozen vegetables after regeneration (West, 2001). Inevitably, the retention of
vitamin C in a meal assembly system would be lower than in a cook-serve due to the
number of processing stages involved, a well controlled cook-serve system will always
give better retention values for the heat labile vitamins. The benefit of ‘Steamplicity’ is
that the pre-prepared food is sealed and a vacuum created, stored for two days at chilled
temperatures and then reheated individually just prior to consumption, thereby reducing
potentiality for nutrient degradation while coincidently allowing for appropriate texture
The aim of this research, therefore, was to directly compare selected aspects of a
traditional cook-chill foodservice operation against ‘Steamplicity’. Specifically, the
goals were to measure food wastage at ward level; ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. patients, staff,
etc) satisfaction with both systems; and patients’ acceptability of the food provided.
Materials and Methods
Context and overview
A large National Health Service (NHS) teaching hospital was selected where
developmental work for Steamplicity was taking place. Permission was sought and
granted by hospital management to conduct this research and consent was given by
Data were collected from a post operative surgical ward where patients (n=52, 48%
male and 52% female) presented a mixture of clinical conditions. Over the study, 11
patients had been in this hospital previously 42 had not and the number of days as an ‘in
patient’ ranged from 1 to 240 (thirty-four weeks) with a mean of 28 for the cook-chill,
and 24 for the ‘Steamplicity’ system.
This ward was identified with the help of catering and medical staff as the most suitable
in that; these patients are more likely to stay longer, their medical condition would not
interfere with food consumption, they are capable of independent judgement and a
surgical ward represented a typical realistic hospital situation. The ward was not part of
the pilot developmental work for ‘Steamplicity’.
The study was conducted in two phases over two, two-week periods; the first phase
used the existing cook-chill food service operation, and the second, the ‘Steamplicity’
system. In both phases, the total amount of food sent to the ward and the total amount
remaining once the meal service had been completed was ascertained, over three
consecutive days, each week (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) using appropriate
A mixed methodological approach was used to elucidate the complex nature of
satisfaction with the food service system and food. Patient satisfaction with both
systems was initially evaluated using a questionnaire. This was administered at the
midday meal on the first day of the study and at the evening meal on the last day of the
study. To enhance and validate this information, the research was extended to
incorporate observation, focus groups and interviews with both patients and pertinent
stakeholders such as medical staff, food service staff, and visitors. Food wastage, both
bulk and plate, was directly measured using appropriate balances over three days each
week. This approach permitted a direct comparison between the two meal systems.
Phase 1 (2 weeks) - Cook-Chill System
This phase utilised a ‘traditional’ cook-chill system, which was in operation in the ward.
Here a cyclical menu was used with food being pre-ordered the day before. On the day
of consumption, cold bulk food was loaded into the trolley and transported to the ward.
Here it was regenerated, plated and taken to patients’ beds. All food loaded into the
trolley was weighed by individual food item using ‘Teroaka Digital Weighing Scales’
(Model DS-50; ± 2g; max 6kg) once it had arrived at the ward, and details recorded.
When the meal service had been completed, all food remaining on the trolley was
weighed by individual food item and recorded.
Once patients had finished their meals, or all they could eat, any food remaining on the
plate was weighed by food item using either the Teroaka Scales or a ‘Soehnle Balance’
(± 1g; max 1kg), out of sight of patients and recorded. Where foods had become
‘mixed’, individual components were separated where possible; otherwise, a value
judgement was made as to what the food item was. Note was made of the number of
patients who had been served meals at each mealtime and also the number of meals, by
mealtime, which were served but not consumed for reasons such as Nil-by-Mouth,
discharged or absent from the ward for any other reason. Unfortunately due to
unforeseen circumstances (London bombing) data could not be collected on the final
study day and therefore results are presented for five days for this system.
Phase 2 (2 weeks) – ‘Steamplicity’ System
This phase utilised the ‘Steamplicity’ system. Patients ordered meals approximately
two hours prior to meal service from an extended choice menu, which remained
unchanged from midday to evening meals, and throughout the study. Individual, ready-
plated chilled meals (incorporating both fresh and partially cooked items) were
transported to the ward and cooked, as required, using microwave ovens. The average
portion sizes of individual foods and meals were taken from existing production
records. All meals (main courses and desserts) sent to the ward were then recorded.
Any food items left on the plate, once patients had completed their meals, were weighed
out of sight of patients, providing the average weight of food served to patients. Note
was also taken of all meals which were served but not consumed for reasons such as
Nil-by-Mouth, discharge or absent from the ward for any other reason and where the
meal had remained refrigerated and could therefore be used for a subsequent meal.
Patient acceptability of the food service systems and food
In order to assess the overall acceptability of the food service systems and of each food
item, a questionnaire was administered on two occasions to patients on the research
ward during each week of the study.
Developing the Questionnaire
A questionnaire was developed, informed from the literature and previous hospital
research, to ascertain patients’ opinions of the food service system and the food
provided. Prior to the main research, a small pilot study was conducted to establish the
validity and ease of completion of the questionnaire for patients. Two versions of the
questionnaire were developed and distributed to eight individuals (male and female age
range 24-55), with recent prior experience of being in hospital. The purpose here was to
ensure that both the questions and questionnaire could be understood and had been
interpreted correctly. These issues were confirmed by talking with participants
immediately after they had completed the questionnaire. Resulting from the responses
received, the questionnaire was revised and a further questionnaire distributed. This
then only required minor modifications and is given in Appendix A.
Administering the Questionnaire
Questionnaires were administered to each patient at the beginning of their stay (earliest
Tuesday midday) and at the end of their stay (or Thursday evening meal). They were
not administered to patients who for any reason were not eating, or who were not
‘mentally’ capable of completing them. Questionnaires were administered immediately
before the meal and collected once the meal had been completed and within an hour.
Assistance was given where necessary to help patients complete the questionnaires,
although those providing assistance had been appropriately trained and did not attempt
to ‘lead’ the responses in any way.
Focus groups/semi-structured interviews
Hospital food service does not operate in isolation but requires the co-operation and
integration of several disciplines to provide the ultimate patient experience. It is
accepted in the literature that patient assessment of meal service is multidimensional
(Gregoire, 1994) and that the hospitality experience is essentially interactive (Hepple et
al, 1990). Accordingly, stakeholders such as medical staff, food service staff, patients
and visitors were consulted after encountering both service systems to identify factors
contributing towards patient satisfaction and to elucidate each patient meal experience.
Sampling was purposive, that is directed, and data collected until saturation point,
thereby giving credibility to the study. A research protocol informed from a review of
the relevant literature and past studies was developed, with the main issues around
patient satisfaction and meal experience being explored. Perceived temperature and
texture have been previously identified (Hartwell, 2004) as the two most significant
factors in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with hospital food service and therefore
food quality issues were expanded.
Patients were representative of the patient population and included males and females in
the age range 25-68 years with a length of stay ranging from four days to seven weeks.
Views and opinions were eagerly expressed and recorded where possible, other wise
notes were written-up immediately afterwards.
Food wastage data were entered directly into a pre-prepared spreadsheet for analysis.
Both trolley waste and plate waste were calculated for the cook-chill system and plate
waste for ‘Steamplicity’ using formulae within the spreadsheet.
Results from the questionnaires were coded and entered into spreadsheet (Excel) and
checked for accuracy. The data were then imported into the statistical program
“Statistical Package for the Social Sciences” (SPSS) and analysed to address the overall
purpose of the study. Means and standard deviations were calculated and t-tests for
unrelated scores used to compare the results: levels of statistical significance used were
p = <0.05. Interviews were analysed by content analysis which allowed for developing
themes to be incorporated and a hierarchical flagging system was established.
Authenticity was ensured by including raw narrative within discussion.
Results and preliminary discussion
A comparison of the factors associated with the two systems is given in Table 1.
Insert table 1 here
As can be seen from these results, ‘Steamplicity’ scored higher for all variables,
although not all of these were significantly different. Results for the two variables
associated with food choice are similar; indicating that despite what at first sight might
appear to be a lack of choice with ‘Steamplicity’, it is sufficient, although care must be
taken with this assumption as patients would not have experienced ‘Steamplicity’ long
enough to produced menu fatigue.
Food ordering is important and results for the ‘Steamplicity’ system are significantly
higher; patients are well aware of what is available. This is advantageous in that with
pre-information, consumers can mentally plan what to eat, not only for the next meal,
but also for subsequent meals. There were no significant differences in the ability of
patients to select their own meals; similarly, there were no significant differences for the
two variables associated with food delivery. All of these factors have the potential to
affect acceptability and enjoyment hence the lack of significance is important.
Food quality scores for ‘Steamplicity’ were higher for all four attributes although only
two of these were significantly different. The most likely reason for this is the high
spread of mean values as indicated by the standard deviation, but only further testing
would confirm this. Again with the overall impression of the meal, the mean values for
‘Steamplicity’ were higher with two being significantly different, perhaps because of
the higher Standard Deviation. One variable that might be of concern is the portion
size, and it is encouraging to note that the mean value was significantly higher for
‘Steamplicity’ indicating that patients were satisfied with the size of the portion as
Due to the limited number of different foods selected, foods have been grouped by
category, i.e. meat, fish etc and an analysis undertaken. These results are given in Table
Insert table 2
As can be seen, the overall acceptability of the food groups is much higher with the
‘Steamplicity’ system, in most cases, significantly. However, care must be taken with
these results as the number of groups, particularly rice, is quite small, and the
comparison is with food groups rather that dish. Even so, there appears to be a clear
preference for the food items.
Food wastage with ‘Steamplicity’ is considerably lower. The plate waste at the midday
meal was 20% and at the evening meal 13%, giving a mean of 16.5%. Wastage with
the cook-chill system was 27% from the trolley and 22% from the plates, giving a total
of 49%. It is perhaps interesting to note that plate waste was 5.5% higher with the
cook-chill, indicative perhaps of food quality.
Patient Food Intake
The total weight of food consumed in the ward at each meal was divided by the number
of main courses served. Results for the Cook-chill are given in Table 3 and for
‘Steamplicity’ in Table 4.
Insert table 3 and table 4 here
As can be seen, the mean food consumption at lunch with the cook-chill was 202g
whilst that for the ‘Steamplicity’ system was 282g. Similarly, at the evening meal,
mean consumption was 226g compared with 310g. Care needs to be taken when
interpreting these figures as the foods measured were only those for the main course and
vegetables, and excluded other items such as ‘starters’ and ‘deserts’. In addition, with
the Cook-chill system, the number of patients was based on the number of ‘entrees’
served; hence it could be feasible that some patients chose not to have an entrée.
Notwithstanding, the results suggest that the amount of food consumed using the
‘Steamplicity’ system are higher for both the lunch and evening meals.
Focus groups and Interviews
Informal interviews were conducted with pertinent stakeholders to ascertain opinions
and attitudes enabling a comparison to be made between the two food service systems.
Patients (n=5) both male and female (age range 25 – 68 years), short and long stay,
visitors (n=4), catering managers (n=3), medical staff (n=4) and a ward hostess were
interviewed to gain an in depth understanding from those people who have most
interaction with the catering operation. Using such methodology, an in depth
comparison can be made between the two food service systems within the research
remit. Respondents were articulate and enthusiastic to share comments with the
researcher; interviews were conducted for as long as necessary to fulfil the objective of
the research as set and until saturation of information. Analysis of data allowed for
developing themes to be identified.
The menu card was well received with words such as ‘exciting’, ‘colourful’, and ‘well
presented’ used to describe the first impressions from patients.
….‘it could be a restaurant’ articulated one patient.
Patients also felt that dishes were appropriately described and accurately reflected their
expectation of the meal. In addition, staff commented on the fact that the menus looked
a lot nicer and more appealing than previous systems. A broad range of menu items is
offered within the ‘Steamplicity’ system with the emphasis on the classical, traditional
dish. Notwithstanding, although the balance of dishes was identified as sufficient for
short stay patients, for longer stay patients, menu fatigue was an issue raised. An
especial concern was for those patients who have individual requirements such as
vegetarians/vegans, ethnic minorities who do not eat pork and for those patients who
could only consume a ‘soft’ diet. Provision for this group was very limited and
dissatisfaction was voiced most strongly. For strict vegetarians who do not eat fish there
was only a choice of four main meal menu items.
There was no issue regarding the composite nature of the dishes served in the
‘Steamplicity’ system, in that the vegetables and sauce arrive as one with no
opportunity to deselect an item if not required. However, patients are quite happy to
leave food if not consumed and did not feel pressurised to finish the plate as served.
Even so, it was noted by younger patients that chips were not offered on the new menu
alternatives and there was no opportunity to order them as a side dish. This was felt to
be disappointing and lead to minor dissatisfaction.
Portion size was sufficient for the male patients although maybe rather large for female
patients recovering from surgery. There were some disadvantages identified in the lack
of portion size choice, in that one female patient thought the meal might have been too
large, but this aspect did not appear to affect her enjoyment and consumption of the
food. Criticism from patients was voiced from the perspective of ‘soup of the day’ and
‘hot dessert of the day’ on the ‘Steamplicity’ menu as there seemed to be a lack of
communication from kitchen to ward hostess. Correct information was not always
available and frustration ensued when patients found the menu misinterpreted. Menu
monotony is a factor that should be guarded against particularly in a hospital
All stakeholders agreed that the ordering system was much improved from a patient
perspective in the food service system under trial. A two-hour lead-time allows for
greater patient flexibility and individuality of choice, dependent on the medical
situation. It also means that patients are less likely to have forgotten what they have
ordered making meal management easier for the ward hostess. This system can also
accommodate those patients who are late back from appointments with x-ray for
example, a situation that is much appreciated by the medical staff. However, from a
holistic operational perspective, the 24-hour ordering system is easier to manage. There
is longer time for orders to be placed and therefore less pressure on operatives in
working to a tight deadline.
Patients were enthusiastic and positive regarding the quality of food as served with
‘Steamplicity’. Dishes are well presented, of appropriate colour and temperature and in
addition the texture particularly of vegetables is excellent. When asked to ‘Recount your
best hospital food experience’ patients were fulsome in their praise of ‘Steamplicity’
and reflected comments such as:
……‘the beef casserole is delicious, the sauce is brilliant, I have had some worst pub
……’the mash potato is excellent, I never eat mash at home but I will order it here all
the time’ (patient)
…’.it is lovely to have freshly prepared fruit in hospital’ (patient)
When asked to ‘Recount your worst hospital food experience’ patients commented on
previous hospital experiences of ‘soggy vegetables’, ‘cold vegetables’ and ‘chewy meat’
all issues not evidenced in the ‘Steamplicity’ style of food service.
All stakeholders agreed that patients are generally more satisfied with the ‘Steamplicity’
system. There is greater interaction with food service staff and the operation better
mirrors hospitality found outside an institution in a commercial environment. Menus are
distributed with a drink; the patient then has time to reflect on their food choice before
the order is taken. The food arrives attractively presented, and at the appropriate
Ward hostesses also perceive the system to be an improvement particularly from a
Health and Safety aspect; putting a meal in a microwave is preferable to dealing with
hot plates and ovens. Medical staff also prefer this system, they feel that the pressure at
meal times has been taken off them, so that they can concentrate on medical issues such
as handover and vital sign monitoring. It is less problematic dealing with late patients
and they have noticed a decrease in wastage. In summary the final comment from the
ward hostess reflects the general consensus from stakeholders
……’patients like steamplicity which makes my job easier as there are fewer
complaints and a happier ward, even nursing staff are enthusiastic’ (ward hostess)
Great efforts have been devoted to improve hospital catering since malnutrition among
patients is a widespread phenomenon (Council of Europe, 2002; Singh et al, 2006).
This improvement is expected to be done in a cost effective way (Mikkelson et al,
2003) and thus new solutions including increased use of semi processed foods are
becoming increasingly important. ‘Steamplicity’ as a system follows the model of an
uninterrupted supply chain where production, distribution, serving and ordering are
achieved in a seamless, efficient way to the benefit of the consumer. An evaluation of
two hospital food service systems, cook-chill and ‘Steamplicity’ has shown the latter to
have a number of inherent advantages. As indicated from the questionnaires, patients
preferred the ‘Steamplicty’ system in all areas: food choice, ordering, delivery, food
quality and overall. A number of these differences were statistically significant, and in
many of the others, numerical differences are high; it would seem that if the spread of
responses had been lower, these might also be significant. The focus groups and
unstructured interviews showed broad agreement with the questionnaires but
highlighted and emphasised a number of pertinent issues adding richness to the data.
Food wastage is an emotive, but important subject, particularly for hospital food service
where wastage at ward level has consistently been reported to be in excess of 60%
(Edwards and Nash, 1997). Not only is this an inefficient use of valuable resources,
but also hospitals with high food waste are less likely to meet their patients’ nutritional
requirements. In addition, this can be viewed as an inverse measure of consumer
acceptability. The wastage figures for both systems exceed the current guidelines (NHS
Estates, 2005) although these guidelines need to be interpreted in relation to the patients
involved. This ward was chosen in part because it was surgical and therefore the
systems could be tested in a realistic environment. Clearly though, the wastage was
considerably less with the ‘Steamplicity’ system; although poor operating procedures
could easily negate this advantage.
Researching factors that impinge on patient satisfaction with hospital foodservice
allows an understanding and appreciation to be gained of the interconnected, ordered set
of relationships underlying a positive experience. Food quality has been shown to be a
defining element within this environment and any service system that can enhance
consumption should be embraced. In reality, satisfaction with a hospitality experience is
a sum total of satisfactions with the individual elements or attributes of all the products
and services that make up the experience. Notwithstanding, food quality, preference and
satisfaction of each patient group will need to be addressed if hospital food service is to
fulfil both physiological and psychological requirements.
The following recommendations are therefore made to ensure the optimisation of the
• Operating procedures, which enhance and take advantage of the ‘Steamplicity’
system, should be clearly established and laid down. These should be regularly
monitored to ensure compliance.
• Training and ongoing training should be the norm.
• Menus should be explicit in terms of what patients can order.
• A weekly/fortnightly change of menus should be considered.
• Greater choice should be available for groups such as vegetarians/vegans.
• The availability of diets for groups such as ethnic patients and those on specialist
diets, for example, ‘soft’ should be quite clear.
This research was conducted in 2004 and since commencement many of these
recommendations have been progressed and implemented.
AUDIT COMMISSION (2001) Acute hospital portfolio: review of national findings,
Wetherby: Audit Commission Publications.
CARDELLO A., BELL R. and KRAMER M. (1996) Attitudes of consumers toward
military and other institutional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 7-20.
CHURCH I. and PARSONS A., (2000) The sensory quality of chicken and potato
products prepared using cook-chill and sous vide methods. International Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 35, 155-162.
CLARK J.E. (1998). Taste and flavour: their importance in food choice and
acceptance, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 57, 639-643.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2001) Food and Nutritional Care in Hospitals: How to
prevent undernutrition, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
DAVIS A.M. and BRISTOW A., (1999) Managing Nutrition in Hospital, London: The
DEEMING C. (2002) Hard to swallow. Health Service Journal, 22 August, 28-29.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1989) Chilled and Frozen guidelines on Cook-Chill
and Cook-Freeze Catering Systems, London: HMSO.
EDWARDS J.S.A. and NASH A. (1997) Measuring the wasteline. Health Service
Journal, November, 26-27.
EDWARDS J.S.A., SCHAFHEITLE J.M., REEVE W.G. and EDWARDS A. (1998)
Food Production Techniques in Catering Today - A Comparative Study In Edwards
J.S.A. and Lee-Ross D.(ed.) Culinary Arts and Sciences 2, Bournemouth University:
Worshipful Company of Cooks Centre for Culinary Research.
GLEDHILL B. (1993) The NHS Carve up. Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 19 August, 30-32.
GREGOIRE M. B. (1994) Quality of patient meal service in hospitals: Delivery of
meals by dietary employees vs delivery by nursing employees. Journal of The American
Dietetic Association, 94, 1129-1134.
HARTWELL H.J. (2004) Patient experience, nutritional intake and satisfaction with
hospital food service. Doctor of Philosophy Theses Bournemouth University, Poole.
HEPPLE J., KIPPS M. and THOMSON J. (1990) The concept of hospitality and an
evaluation of it's applicability to the experience of hospital patients. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 9, 305-318.
HWANG LI-JEN J., DESOMBRE T., EVES A. and KIPPS M. (1999) An analysis of
catering options within NHS acute hospitals. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, 12, 293-308.
JACKSON R. (1997) Meal Delivery. Healthcare Food and Nutrition Focus, 13, 6.
JONES P. and LOCKWOOD A., Hospitality operating systems. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7, (5), 17-20.
LAWSON J.M., HUNT C., and GLEW G (1983) Nutrition in catering. Nutrition
Bulletin, 38, 93-104.
McCLELLAND A. and WILLIAMS P. (2003) Trend to better nutrition on Australian
hospital menus 1986-2001 and the impact of cook-chill food service systems. Journal
of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 16, 245-256.
McERLAIN L., MARSON H., AINSWORTH P. and BURNETT S. (2001) Ascorbic
acid loss in vegetables: adequacy of a hospital cook-chill system. International Journal
of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 52, 205-211.
McWHIRTER J.P. and PENNINGTON C.R. (1994) Incidence and recognition of
malnutrition in hospital, British Medical Journal, 308, 945-948.
MIBEY R. and WILLIAMS P. (2002) Food services trends in New South Wales
hospitals, 1993-2001. Food Service Technology, 2, 95-103.
MIKKELSEN B.E., BECK A.M., BALKNÄS U.N., CAMILO M.E., FŰRST P.,
GENTILE M.G., HASUNEN K., JONES L., JONKERS-SCHUITEMA C., KELLER
U., MELCHIOR J.C., OIEN H., PAVCIC M., SCHAUDER P., SIVONEN, L., ZINCK,
O. and OVESEN L. (2003). What can food service operators do to remedy
undernutrition in hospitals? A European perspective from an ad hoc group on Nutrition
Programmes in Hospitals, Council of Europe. Foodservice Research International. 13,
NETTLES M., GREGORIE M. and CANTER D., (1997) Analysis of the decision to
select a conventional or cook-chill system for hospital food service. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 97, (6), 626-631.
NHS Estates (2005). Managing food waste in the NHS. Department of Health, NHS
NISSEN H., ROSNES J. T., BRENDEHAUG J., KLEIBERG G.H., (2002) Safety
evaluation of sous vide-processed ready meals. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 35,
OH H. (2000) Diners' Perceptions of Quality, Value and Satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, June, 58-66.
PONTIN J., (2005) Technology and Hypercuisine. Technology Review, October.
ROGERS S. (2005) Selecting a food service system: a review. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17, (2), 157-169.
SCHAFHEITLE J.M. and LIGHT N.D. (1989) Sous-vide cooking and its application to
cook-chill what does the future hold? Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 1, 5-10.
SILVERMAN M. R., GREGOIRE M.B., LAFFERTY L.J. and DOWLING R.A. (2000)
Current and future practices in hospital food service. Journal of The American Dietetic
Association, 100, 76-80.
SINGH H., WATT K., VEITCH R., CANTOR M. and DUERKSEN D.R. (2006)
Malnutrition is prevalent in hospitalised medical patients: are house staff identifying the
malnourished patient? Nutrition, 22, in press.
STANGA A. Z., ZURFLUHY Y., ROSELLI M., STERCHI A., TANNER B. and
KNECHT G. (2003) Hospital food: a survey of patients' perceptions, Clinical Nutrition,
STRATTON R.J., KING C.L., STROUD M.A., JACKSON A.A. and ELIA M. (2006)
‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ predicts mortality and length of hospital stay in
acutely ill elderly, British Journal of Nutrition, 95, (2), 325-330.
TANSEY F.S., GORMLEY T.R., BOURKE P., O’BEIRNE D. and OLIVEIRA J.C.
(2003) Texture, quality and safety of sous vide/frozen foods, Proceedings of the
Culinary Arts and Science IV Conference, Orebro, 199-207.
WEST A. (2001) Meals assembly system and nutritional implications. In Edwards
J.S.A. and Hewedi M.M. (ed.) Culinary Arts and Sciences 111, Egypt: Al-Karma Press.
WILLIAMS P.G. (1996) Vitamin retention in cook/chill and cook/hot-hold hospital
foodservices. Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 96, 490-497.
WILLIAMS P.G. (2002) Nutrition and patients - whose responsibility? Australian
Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics, 59, 229-230.
Table 1. A Comparison of Selected Parameters: Cook-Chill and ‘Steamplicity’
Variable Question n
Good choice/variety of dishes
Like to see greater choice
Know choice available at meals¶
Able to select own meal
Receive meal ordered
Did not order own meal
Well presented on plate¶
Served at appropriate temperature
Enjoyed food served
Satisfied with meal¶
Portion size sufficient¶
Able to eat without assistance
Didn’t feel like eating
Variables in bold italics and annotated ¶ are significantly different, p = <0.05
1 = Totally Disagree, 7 = Totally Agree (numbers have been transposed from the questionnaire;
therefore, the higher the number the more patients agree with the statement)
Table 2. A Comparison of Foods: Cook-Chill and ‘Steamplicity’
All food groups except Pasta and Vegetables are significantly different p = <0.05
1 = Totally Disliked, 7 = Totally Like
Table 3. Mean Patient Food Consumption Cook-Chill
Table 4. Mean Patient Food Consumption ‘Steamplicity’
Appendix A Download full-text