Unintended consequences, indeed: “A few years ago, as we tried to improve patient satisfaction, we changed the way that patients order their hospital food. The program was called “At Your Request” and let patients call up to order their meals from a menu of options ““ at essentially anytime they wanted to eat. (From a practical standpoint, this works a lot like room service: you call and order your meal, and it shows up half an hour later.)
However, this turned out to be another way that patients who were at high risk for aspiration (see above) could get food that was unsafe for them to eat.”
Related posts:
- My take: Colon cleansing, patient satisfaction
- Should patient satisfaction influence physician compensation?
- Patient hand-offs are a source of serious patient harm
- Walk-in clinics and patient satisfaction
- Same-day appointments lowers patient satisfaction?
- JCAHO: Harming patient safety?
- Patient satisfaction and physician compensation
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
If you read the original post, you’d learn that the process was redesigned to make it safer for patients at risk of aspiration.
I don’t see this as a case of pandering to patient satisfaction. It seems more like an example of process improvement. (Although I’m a little surprised that no one anticipated this problem – maybe the real issue here was inadequate planning rather than unintended consequences?)
Room service isn’t just about patient satisfaction either. It cuts down drastically on food waste when meals can be delivered when the patient is ready to eat, vs. at three predetermined times during the day. I mean, we’ve all experienced hospital stays when the surgery is delayed for hours, or the patient has to be taken out of their room for a procedure, or the patient isn’t feeling well enough to eat, and meanwhile that noon lunch tray sits there, uneaten, getting cold and unappetizing and eventually has to be thrown into the garbage. It costs money and it all adds up.
Comments on this entry are closed.