A study for the establishment of higher foodservice standards in health-care facilities

1. Area of Investigation The relative need of higher standards in healthcare foodservice facilities. Individual opinions of foodservice directors. 2. Materials and Methods Used Existing text, trade publications, interviews with industry leaders, conferences with estemmed professors and the author's own experience were used for research and evaluation. An important method used to evaluate the need for higher standards was a descriptive survey and the analysis thereof. 3. Major Findings A. The survey showed, with a 42 percent response, that the overwhelming majority of the respondents have problems within their department. B. It is presumed that these problems are caused by a lack of standards and/or a failure to meet existing standards. 4. Results and Conclusions A. The objectives of the majority of health-care facilities is to provide the best possible care at lowest possible price. The objectives of the foodservice department is to provide the best possible food at the most reasonable cost. B. Continuous education of foodservice directors in all facets of the industry are necessary so that each foodservice director has the capacity to establish and maintain, and in some cases surpass his or her own standards. C. Where no standards exist minimum requirements should be set to satisfy the objectives and goals of both the facility and foodservice department.

Facilities Tour

Outline of the COM facilities tour.

Project Fact Sheet: Academic Health Sciences Center Master Planning Initiative

Fact sheet describing the desired qualifications for the Academic Health Sciences Master Planning Initiative team.

AHSC Facilities Master Plan

Plans and projections for the development of the Academic Health Sciences facility.

A State and Territorial Survey Regarding Utilization of Environmental Health Shelter Assessments during Disasters, and a Secondary Analysis of Available Shelter Assessment Data

Disasters are complex events characterized by damage to key infrastructure and population displacements into disaster shelters. Assessing the living environment in shelters during disasters is a crucial health security concern. Until now, jurisdictional knowledge and preparedness on those assessment methods, or deficiencies found in shelters is limited. A cross-sectional survey (STUSA survey) ascertained knowledge and preparedness for those assessments in all 50 states, DC, and 5 US territories. Descriptive analysis of overall knowledge and preparedness was performed. Fisher’s exact statistics analyzed differences between two groups: jurisdiction type and population size. Two logistic regression models analyzed earthquakes and hurricane risks as predictors of knowledge and preparedness. A convenience sample of state shelter assessments records (n=116) was analyzed to describe environmental health deficiencies found during selected events. Overall, 55 (98%) of jurisdictions responded (states and territories) and appeared to be knowledgeable of these assessments (states 92%, territories 100%, p = 1.000), and engaged in disaster planning with shelter partners (states 96%, territories 83%, p = 0.564). Few had shelter assessment procedures (states 53%, territories 50%, p = 1.000); or training in disaster shelter assessments (states 41%, 60% territories, p = 0.638). Knowledge or preparedness was not predicted by disaster risks, population size, and jurisdiction type in neither model. Knowledge: hurricane (Adjusted OR 0.69, 95% C.I. 0.06-7.88); earthquake (OR 0.82, 95% C.I. 0.17-4.06); and both risks (OR 1.44, 95% C.I. 0.24-8.63); preparedness model: hurricane (OR 1.91, 95% C.I. 0.06-20.69); earthquake (OR 0.47, 95% C.I. 0.7-3.17); and both risks (OR 0.50, 95% C.I. 0.06-3.94). Environmental health deficiencies documented in shelter assessments occurred mostly in: sanitation (30%); facility (17%); food (15%); and sleeping areas (12%); and during ice storms and tornadoes. More research is needed in the area of environmental health assessments of disaster shelters, particularly, in those areas that may provide better insight into the living environment of all shelter occupants and potential effects in disaster morbidity and mortality. Also, to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of these assessments methods and the data available on environmental health deficiencies in risk management to protect those at greater risk in shelter facilities during disasters.