II

AA

Ll

Soaclmissdtlcabrat7astis

F

HE

AS

Lb

BltiN

Ms(aaik

Rw8srhb

Nir

Cmhsh

F

DN

Ao

Lbi

Bbsisds

MsKeaiim

RSiflcp

Ccbcf

MONDAY, OCTOBER 19

POSTER SESSION: SCIENCE/EDUCATION/MANAGEMENT/FOODSERVICE/CULINARY/RESEARCH

mproving Patient Satisfaction Scores with themplementation of a Cardiac Finger Food Diet

uthor(s): S. Koepke; US Military Dietetic Internship Consortium--ir Force Site, San Antonio, TX

earning Outcome: Involving nursing in food service changes canead to better patient and nursing satisfaction scores.

afety and patient satisfaction are top priorities of any food serviceperation. Due to staffing shortage, nurses were unable toccommodate dietary needs of patients who visit the cardiacatheterization lab. While patients are occupied, food cools and wasater reheated and served. This resulted in unsafe and unappealing

eals. Striving to meet patients’ needs, nutrition servicesmplemented a ”cardiac finger food diet” to ensure patients receive aafe and desirable meal. A critical step in this process was trainingtaff on procedures on ordering the diet. When nurses changed theiet order and note ”Cardiac Cath Tray,” it triggered diet office staffo automatically make the patient NPO for breakfast, finger foods forunch, and a regular dinner to ensure the correct meal is sent at theorrect time. The new tray consisted of a sandwich, pre-cut vegetable,beverage and a piece of fruit. It was delivered at lunch in a small

ox conveniently stored in the refrigerator on the patient unit. Theesult was more desirable food that was safe for consumption andvailable when the patient needed it. One third of patients reportedhat their needs were met or exceeded in regards to temperature and5% reported their expectations were met or exceeded in regards toppearance of the meal. After partial implementation, satisfactioncores for appearance held at 75% and temperature scores increasedo 75% of expectations being met or exceeded. Involving nursing staffmproved their perception of nutrition services and patientatisfaction also improved.

unding Disclosure: None

Funding Disclosure: None

CW

AH

Lrfr

TMtsestfmwtcssrctwsrrSssw

F

andwashing Practices of Low-Income Women Enrolled in thexpanded Food and Nutrition Education Program of Texas

uthor(s): A. R. Scott, J. D. Anding; Department of Nutrition and Foodcience, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, College Station, TX

earning Outcome: Participants will understand hand washingehaviors among low income women.

ackground: Proper handwashing is important to everyone, includingow-income families who often have limited resources for medicalreatment. This study evaluated handwashing practices among low-ncome, non-pregnant females enrolled in the Expanded Food andutrition Education Program of Texas.

ethods: Before the program, participants (n�713) completed a bilingualurvey which featured questions related to handwashing. Most participants82%) were Hispanic; nearly 70% had a high school education or less. Meange was 36 years. Twelve percent (n� 82) reported having at least one olderdult living in the household. Other highly susceptible populations (HSP)dentified included children �5 years (44%) and individuals with diabetes oridney disease (18%).

esults: The percentage of participants who “always” washed their handsas high. For example, 87% washed their hands before preparing food;4% after touching a pet and 88% after touching raw meat, chicken, oreafood. Ninety-one percent “always” washed hands after using theestroom. For those who changed diapers, 90% “always” washed theirands afterwards while 86% of those who handled formula or bottledreast milk did so.

early one-third of participants (n�222) reported never receivingnformation on food safety. Yet data suggest that most were followingecommended handwashing practices.

onclusion: Although the participants reported positive results, theyay not have followed the “twenty second rule” for an adequateandwash. Continued education on handwashing is needed, especiallyince this study suggests that HSP are often present in low-incomeouseholds.

unding Disclosure: None

o Food Safety Behaviors Differ among Married andon-Married Individuals?

uthor(s): J. A. Northrop, M. G. Roseman, J. Kurzynske; Universityf Kentucky, Lexington, KY

earning Outcome: Identify differences in food safety behaviorsetween married and non-married individuals in order to utilize thisnformation in public education and patient counseling.

ackground: Limited studies on marital status and risky food safetyehavior along with previous studies on self-reported risky behaviorsuch as seat belt usage, drinking and driving, and internet gamblingndicate differences between married and non-married individuals. Thistudy sought to determine if risky behavior with regard to food safetyiffered between married people when compared to single, divorced,eparated and widowed individuals in a statewide study.

ethods: Based on questions from a Food and Drug Administrationurvey, data was collected in 2005 through a telephone interview ofentucky households. Random digit dialing procedures were used;very Kentucky household had an equal probability of being callednd at least fifteen attempts to the household were made. 2,163ndividuals were contacted with 841 respondents (39%). The samplencluded 35% males and 65% females; 62% married and 38% non-

arried.

esults: Statistically significant associations using the Fisher’s Chi-quare tests were found between married and non-married

ndividuals regarding several food safety behaviors: stopped eatingoods, consumed raw eggs, replaced wipe materials, consumed foodeft overnight. After performing multinomial regression models andontrolling age, gender, education level, income, and main foodreparer status, marital status was not significant.

onclusion: Research has proven marital status to be significantlyorrelated to several risky behaviors, including food safety behaviorsut regional studies may not find those same associations. Theseontrasting findings suggest further research on marital status andood safety behaviors is warranted.

omparison of Long-Term Care Residents’ Food Intake, Bodyeight, and Food Costs between Two Meal Service Styles

uthor(s): D. R. Murphy, J. T. Brooks, A. J. Rainville; School ofealth Sciences, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI

earning Outcome: Participants will gain an awareness ofestaurant-style meal service in long-term care and become advocatesor meal service styles that offer a selection to long-term careesidents.

he purpose of this study was to determine if residents living in aidwestern long-term care facility had differences in food intake at

heir noon meal and body weight when served traditional tray mealervice compared to restaurant-style meal service. The study alsovaluated the facility’s raw food costs between the two meal servicetyles. Long-term care residents (n�26) were weighed at the start ofhe study and served traditional tray meal service at the noon mealor 10 weeks. They were again weighed and served restaurant-style

eal service at the noon meal for the next 10 weeks. They wereeighed at the end of the 10 weeks. Resident food intake records at

he noon meal, body weight records, and raw food cost recordsovering these 20 weeks were reviewed. Mean meal intake scaledcores improved when residents were served restaurant-style mealervice compared to traditional tray meal service. Residents servedestaurant-style meal service ate approximately 75% of their mealompared to approximately 62% when they were served traditionalray meal service. Residents did not show a significant percent bodyeight change or percent BMI change between the two styles of meal

ervice. There was no difference in raw food costs betweenestaurant-style meal service and traditional tray meal service. Mostesidents commented positively about restaurant-style meal service.ince residents ate more of their noon meal and indicated improvedatisfaction with meal service, these results showed that restaurant-tyle meal service can improve the residents’ dining experienceithout increasing food costs.

unding Disclosure: None

Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION / A-65