Comparative Analysis on the Perspectives of Hospitals and Contractors on Items related with Contracting Hospital Foodservice Management

Kim, Hyun Ah; Kim, Jinsou; Yang, Il Sun; Park, Moonkyung; Park, Suyen

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to : a) investigate the current status of contracted hospital food services, b) analyze and clarify various perspectives of contractors and hospitals. Thirty six hospitals and their contractors which were having more than 100 beds located in Seoul, Inchon and Kyungkido, were the subjects of this study. Data were collected through surveys. The survey was conducted during March to April in 2002. Questionnaires were mailed to the 36 directors of dietetic departments of hospitals and 36 managers of contract foodservice management company. Statistical analysis was completed using SPSS Win(11.0) for descriptive analysis, t-test and chi-square-test. The results of the study can be summarized ; 1. The type of contract considered adequate by directors of dietetic departments and managers of contractors was fee-contract, combined type, followed by profit-and-loss contract. 2. According to the results from analysis on the contract cost per meal considered adequate by directors of dietetic departments and managers, the directors of dietetic department indicated that showing no difference with the current contract cost per meal. However, the managers of contractor indicated that showing significant differences compared with the current contract cost per meal(regular diet p<0.01, therapeutic diet p<0.001). 3. In the composition of contract cost per meal considered adequate, the managers of contracting businesses accounted labor cost (p<0.01) as a major cost, whereas the chiefs of nutrition departments accounted miscellaneous or controllable expense (p<0.001) and VAT (p<0.01) as major costs. 4. The directors of dietetic departments and managers thought that the hospital should be responsible for utility costs. On the other hand, directors of dietetic departments regarded that the contractor and managers thought that the hospital should pay for facility investment cost.