Ann Weng Cheong | Ashu Sharma | Tan Tai Kiat · 2016-08-31 · αCatering and food services are...
1
α Catering and food services are regarded as one of the key non-medical functions of hospitals. Studies have shown the important role food and nutrition play in a patient's recuperation journey. Improvement in a patient’s nutritional status contributes to improving well-being and shortening recovery time (Rollins, 1997). Therefore, it is imperative that food served in a hospital be palatable, attractive, nutritious and contamination-free, particularly when patients are not there by choice – and even more so for children, who are especially susceptible to the effects of food poisoning. In KKH, this critical mission is outsourced to and fulfilled by Sodexo Singapore Pte. Ltd. Ω To adopt a scorecard/ ranking framework utilising a composite weighting scheme for outsourced food services’ performance evaluation, and achieve a balanced perspective on vendor overall proficiency. α Would adhering to SLA requirements be a sufficient demonstration of service providers' competency and proficiency levels – particularly in light of the rigours expected of hospital food nutrition and safety? α Historically, SLA specifications have been incorporated into the yardstick for evaluating outsourced performance, manifested as functional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for regular reporting and monitoring. α KPI outcomes are but a reflection of patients’ (or caregivers’) experiences with the hospital’s food services, and symbolise the extent to which they were satisfied, but the results (i) are a mere depiction of an aftermath and (ii) offer limited meaningful insights on behind-the-scene mechanics that may be contributory factors of an event – such as the operational setting, soundness of Sodexo’s hazard prevention system, food preparation standards compliancy, staff proficiencies, etc. α While the above domains fundamentally come under the contractual purview of the outsourced service provider, keeping an arm’s length relationship with the vendor may render the hospital in a blind spot situation, wherein it becomes customarily reactive in responding to service lapses without getting to the core of the issue. Tasked to prepare and serve up an averaged 36,000 inpatient meals a month (breakfast, lunch and dinner combined), in addition to the supplemental role of producing meals for staff and caregiver (when necessary), and organisational catering functions. Bounded by a set of service level agreement (SLA) specifications designed to ensure compliance with high service standards. More importantly, the terms and conditions are intended for the safeguarding of the Hospital's interests and protection of patients' safety. After deliberations between PSS Division & Sodexo on agreed items to be taken into consideration for scoring, the Food Services Scorecard was developed & rolled out in Sep 2015. 14 Meal Delivery To All Patients No incident of missing meal reported. 0 point : Any missing meal incident reported. 5 points : No incident reported. 1 5 15 Staff Strength On Site To match with the contractual projection 0 point : > 20% deviation from contractual requirement. 1 point : > 15% and <20% deviation from contractual requirement. 2 points : > 10% and <15% deviation from contractual requirement. 3 points : > 5% and <10% deviation from contractual requirement. 4 points : <5% deviation from contractual requirement. 5 points : Tally with contractual requirement. 0.5 2.5 16 Food Delivery Timeliness Score > 80% of patients' ratings for ‘Good’ and and above . 0 point : Score <80% timeliness rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 5 points : Score > 80% timeliness rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 1.5 7.5 DELIVERY [MAX. POINTS: 15] 9 Food Taste Score > 66% in patients' ratings for 'Good' and above . 0 point : Score <66% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 5 points : Score > 66% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 1.5 7.5 10 Food Temperature Score > 75% in patients' ratings for ‘Good’ and above . 0 point : Score <75% temperature rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 5 points : Score > 75% temperature rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 1.25 6.25 11 Food Service Staff's Friendliness Score > 88% in patients' ratings for ‘Good’ and above . 0 point : Score <88% taste rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 5 points : Score > 88% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed and O&G combined). 1.25 6.25 12 Equipment Upkeep A) Perform weekly kitchen facilities and equipment maintenance . B) Facilities and equipment defect reporting and update within day 3 of fault reporting. 5 points : Sighting of equipment maintenance and servicing records. Prompt reporting and updating of equipment fault status. 1.25 6.25 6.5 QUALITY [MAX. POINTS: 32.5] FOCUS AREA PERFORMANCE GOAL SERVICE RATING METHODOLOGY (MAX. 5 POINTS ) WEIGHT MAX. POSSIBLE SCORE 1 Meal Accuracy (For Patients) No incident of wrong meal reported. 0 point : Any wrong meal (therapeutic/ non-therapeutic) incident reported. 5 points : No incident reported. 1.5 7.5 2 Food Safety A) Proportion of patient meals with foreign matter does not exceed 0.02% of total meals served for the month . B) Microbes level does not exceed acceptable range in any of 4 samples tested for food microorganism . 0 point : Proportion of patient meals with foreign matter > 0.02% of total served meals OR microbes test failure. 1 point : > 3 cases of reported foreign matter incident. 2 point : 3 cases of reported foreign matter incident. 3 point : 2 cases of reported foreign matter incident. 4 point : 1 case of reported foreign matter incident. 5 points : No incident reported. 1.5 7.5 3 Employee Personal Hygiene (Incl. Hand Hygiene) A) Score > 80% for hand hygiene compliance audit for food handlers. B) Hand swab microbiological requirements for food servers kitchen staff 0 point : Failure to meet any of the following: a) > 50% staff HH compliance for KKH Infection Control Unit audit b) > 85% for each of the u/m: - RTE Food Handler Personal Hygiene - General Employee Personal Hygiene 1 point : >50% and < 65% staff HH compliance in KKH audit. 2 point : >65% and < 70% staff HH compliance in KKH audit. 3 point : >70% and < 75% staff HH compliance in KKH audit. 4 point : >75% and <80% staff HH compliance in KKH audit. 5 points : > 80% staff HH compliance in KKH audit. 1.5 7.5 10.5 52.5 I. SAFETY [MAX. POINTS: 52.5] SCORING TARGET TO ACHIEVE EVERY MONTH 20.00 100.00 TOTAL SCORE: Quality Delivery Safety Determine the Strategic Focus Areas for hospital food services to concentrate efforts on the vital few. Determine each Focus Area’s KPIs , monthly targets to achieve & rating frequentness, e.g. quarterly Assign a Composite Weighting Scheme to the Focus Areas & KPIs by determining the max. possible points for each area based on hospital priority & overall score of 100 points. Quality [32.5] Delivery [15] Safety [52.5] Divide the total possible points for each area by the highest possible rating to obtain each area's Total Weight Factor, using a Likert Scale of 1 to 5 & total weighting of 20. E.g. Total possible score under Safety = 52.5 points; Weight Factor = 52.5/5 = 10.5 Rate the KPIs and determine each Focus Area's score by: KPI rating x Weight Factor to determine Sub- total & Total Overall scores. Calculate Total Overall Rating: Total Earned Score/ Total Weight Factor. E.g. if Total Earned Score = 80 points (out of 100 possible), Rating = 80/20 = 4 => Above Average, as per the Likert Scale. Ω The impetus for change & quest for quality improvement does not necessarily have to be constantly unidirectional or top-down. Ω Through mutually-agreeable priorities & collaboration, a more holistic treatment in performance evaluation can be applied. Ω This would help to pinpoint critical & strategic areas in the provisioning of services, and facilitate visibility on operating systems. Ω Eventually, a more balanced approach towards hospital services' delivery performance assessment will yield better benefits for patients. Ann Weng Cheong | Ashu Sharma | Tan Tai Kiat Patient Support Services Division Scan QR code for a glimpse of the scorecard!
Transcript of Ann Weng Cheong | Ashu Sharma | Tan Tai Kiat · 2016-08-31 · αCatering and food services are...
α Catering and food services are regarded as one of the key non-medical functions of hospitals.
Studies have shown the important role food and nutrition play in a patient's recuperation journey.
Improvement in a patient’s nutritional status contributes to improving well-being and shortening recovery time (Rollins, 1997).
Therefore, it is imperative that food served in a hospital be palatable, attractive, nutritious and contamination-free, particularly when patients are not there by choice – and even more so for children, who are especially susceptible to the effects of food poisoning.
In KKH, this critical mission is outsourced to and fulfilled by Sodexo Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Ω To adopt a scorecard/ ranking framework utilising a composite weighting scheme for outsourced food services’ performance evaluation, and achieve a balanced perspective on vendor overall proficiency.
α Would adhering to SLA requirements be a sufficient demonstration of service providers' competency and proficiency levels – particularly in light of the rigours expected of hospital food nutrition and safety?
α Historically, SLA specifications have been incorporated into the yardstick for evaluating outsourced performance, manifested as functional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for regular reporting and monitoring.
α KPI outcomes are but a reflection of patients’ (or caregivers’) experiences with the hospital’s food services, and symbolise the extent to which they were satisfied, but the results (i) are a mere depiction of an aftermath and (ii) offer limited meaningful insights on behind-the-scene mechanics that may be contributory factors of an event – such as the operational setting, soundness of Sodexo’s hazard prevention system, food preparation standards compliancy, staff proficiencies, etc.
α While the above domains fundamentally come under the contractual purview of the outsourced service provider, keeping an arm’s length relationship with the vendor may render the hospital in a blind spot situation, wherein it becomes customarily reactive in responding to service lapses without getting to the core of the issue.
Tasked to prepare and serve up an averaged 36,000 inpatient meals a month (breakfast, lunch and dinner combined), in addition to the supplemental role of producing meals for staff and caregiver (when necessary), and organisational catering functions.
Bounded by a set of service level agreement (SLA) specifications designed to ensure compliance with high service standards. More importantly, the terms and conditions are intended for the safeguarding of the Hospital's interests and protection of patients' safety.
After deliberations between PSS Division & Sodexo on agreed items to be taken into consideration for scoring, the Food Services Scorecard was developed & rolled out in Sep 2015.
14 Meal Delivery To
All Patients
No incident of missing meal reported. 0 point: Any missing meal incident reported.
5 points: No incident reported.
1 5
15 Staff Strength On
Site
To match with the contractual projection 0 point: >20% deviation from contractual requirement.
1 point: >15% and <20% deviation from contractual requirement.
2 points: >10% and <15% deviation from contractual requirement.
3 points: >5% and <10% deviation from contractual requirement.
4 points: <5% deviation from contractual requirement.
5 points: Tally with contractual requirement.
0.5 2.5
16 Food Delivery
Timeliness
Score > 80% of patients' ratings for ‘Good’
and and above.
0 point: Score <80% timeliness rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall patients
(Paed and O&G combined).
5 points: Score >80% timeliness rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients
(Paed and O&G combined).
1.5 7.5
DELIVERY
[MAX.
POINTS: 15]
9 Food Taste Score > 66% in patients' ratings for 'Good'
and above.
0 point: Score <66% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients (Paed
and O&G combined).
5 points: Score >66% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients
(Paed and O&G combined).
1.5 7.5
10 Food Temperature Score > 75% in patients' ratings for ‘Good’
and above.
0 point: Score <75% temperature rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall
patients (Paed and O&G combined).
5 points: Score >75% temperature rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall
patients (Paed and O&G combined).
1.25 6.25
11 Food Service
Staff's Friendliness
Score > 88% in patients' ratings for ‘Good’
and above.
0 point: Score <88% taste rating of 'Good & Execellence' for overall patients
(Paed and O&G combined).
5 points: Score >88% taste rating of 'Good & Excellence' for overall patients
(Paed and O&G combined).
1.25 6.25
12 Equipment Upkeep A) Perform weekly kitchen facilities and
equipment maintenance.
B) Facilities and equipment defect reporting
and update within day 3 of fault reporting.
5 points:
Sighting of equipment maintenance and servicing records.
Prompt reporting and updating of equipment fault status.
1.25 6.25
6.5 32.5
QUALITY
[MAX.
POINTS: 32.5]
FOCUS AREA PERFORMANCE GOALSERVICE RATING METHODOLOGY
(MAX. 5 POINTS)WEIGHT
MAX.
POSSIBLE
SCORE
1 Meal Accuracy (For
Patients)
No incident of wrong meal reported. 0 point: Any wrong meal (therapeutic/ non-therapeutic) incident reported.
5 points: No incident reported.
1.5 7.5
2 Food Safety A) Proportion of patient meals with foreign
matter does not exceed 0.02% of total
meals served for the month.
B) Microbes level does not exceed
acceptable range in any of 4 samples
tested for food microorganism .
0 point: Proportion of patient meals with foreign matter > 0.02% of total served
meals OR microbes test failure.
1 point: > 3 cases of reported foreign matter incident.
2 point: 3 cases of reported foreign matter incident.
3 point: 2 cases of reported foreign matter incident.
4 point: 1 case of reported foreign matter incident.
5 points: No incident reported.
1.5 7.5
3 Employee Personal
Hygiene (Incl. Hand
Hygiene)
A) Score > 80% for hand hygiene compliance
audit for food handlers.
B) Hand swab microbiological requirements
for food servers kitchen staff
0 point: Failure to meet any of the following:
a) > 50% staff HH compliance for KKH Infection Control Unit audit
b) > 85% for each of the u/m:
- RTE Food Handler Personal Hygiene
- General Employee Personal Hygiene
1 point: >50% and <65% staff HH compliance in KKH audit.
2 point: >65% and <70% staff HH compliance in KKH audit.
3 point: >70% and <75% staff HH compliance in KKH audit.
4 point: >75% and <80% staff HH compliance in KKH audit.
5 points: >80% staff HH compliance in KKH audit.
1.5 7.5
10.5 52.5
I. SAFETY
[MAX.
POINTS: 52.5]
SCORING
TARGET TO ACHIEVE
EVERY MONTH
20.00 100.00TOTAL SCORE:
Quality Delivery
Safety Determine the Strategic Focus
Areas for hospital food services to
concentrate efforts on the vital
few.
Determine each Focus Area’s KPIs , monthly targets to achieve & rating frequentness, e.g. quarterly
Assign a Composite Weighting Scheme to the Focus Areas & KPIs by determining the max. possible points for each area based on hospital priority & overall score of 100 points.
Quality [32.5]
Delivery [15]
Safety [52.5]
Divide the total possible points for each area by the highest possible rating to obtain each area's Total Weight Factor, using a Likert Scale of 1 to 5 & total weighting of 20. E.g. Total possible score under Safety = 52.5 points; Weight Factor = 52.5/5 = 10.5
Rate the KPIs and determine each Focus Area's score by: KPI rating x Weight Factor to determine Sub-total & Total Overall scores.
Calculate Total Overall Rating: Total Earned Score/ Total Weight Factor.
E.g. if Total Earned Score = 80 points (out of 100 possible), Rating = 80/20 = 4
=> Above Average, as per the Likert Scale.
Ω The impetus for change & quest for quality improvement does not necessarily have to be constantly unidirectional or top-down.
Ω Through mutually-agreeable priorities & collaboration, a more holistic treatment in performance evaluation can be applied.
Ω This would help to pinpoint critical & strategic areas in the provisioning of services, and facilitate visibility on operating systems.
Ω Eventually, a more balanced approach towards hospital services' delivery
performance assessment will yield better benefits for patients.
Ann Weng Cheong | Ashu Sharma | Tan Tai Kiat Patient Support Services Division
Scan QR code for a glimpse of the scorecard!
