|
|
|
|
|
|
by cactus2093
1306 days ago
|
|
|
From reading the abstract you are completely mischaracterizing this study. For the average person healthy food usually means food with fewer calories and more micro-nutrients, like eating more broccoli and less white bread. This study is about malnourished patients who need more calories than they can even digest from an average meal so they need specialized high-calorie foods that are customized for their own metabolism. It's essentially exactly the opposite of what "healthy food" means in any other context. So it has nothing to do with any narrative about cost cutting and the quality of ingredients used in hospital cafeterias. |
|
|
But I think that is missing the forest for the trees, what this study showed is that when a patient is left on their own, they consume an inadequate diet that _puts their health at risk_ in a hospital. By a big margin!
I would imagine, though the study didn't show this, that the primary factor in recovery here was having a human (dietician) actually paying attention to your recovery. On intake they put together a plan, and followed up routinely to ensure that the patient has consuming their diet.
The GP's point is valid, hospitals are missing out on a 50% increase in health outcomes because they're letting patients fend for themselves with regard to nutrition. You're right that it isn't as easy as spending $6 per meal vs $3 to buy "better" food. But what it means is that hospitals are failing their patients because they aren't thinking and acting with a holistic eye towards patient outcomes.