41st Institute of Hospitality in HealthCare National Conference

Comparison of Water, Energy Use & Waste of Hospital Room Service and Central Plating Systems. (22209)

Denise Cruickshank 1
  1. Queensland Health, Herston, QLD, Australia

Aim: To compare environmental sustainability parameters of two different foodservice systems operating in Queensland Health hospitals (ie. Central Hot Plating(CHP) and Room Service On Demand(RSOD)).

Objectives:

To compare the energy and water use of the two different hospital foodservice systems.

To compare food waste (both food plate waste and bulk/production food waste) and non-food waste (eg. Packaging waste, non-food consumables waste) for two different hospital foodservice systems.

To estimate environmental impact (tonnes CO2 equivalents) for two different hospital foodservice systems.

Methodology:

Over 7 days, all organic, cardboard & paper and general waste was collected and weighed using flat bed digital scales at the two kitchens. Metering of water, electricity and gas was conducted at each site over a 8-10 day period and the results averaged for an average daily usage. Where metering of electricity was not possible, data was collected on equipment average daily usage and energy use was calculated from equipment specifications re energy consumption.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalents in tonnes (t CO2-e) were calculated using the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors – for individuals and organisations estimating greenhouse gas emissions (Australian Government, 2023).

Results:

Organic and Cardboard waste totals were less over the 7 day collection period for RSOD kitchen but greater for general waste. Overall, t CO2-e/day from all waste was nearly double for the RSOD kitchen compared to the CHP kitchen. When calculated as tCO2-e/meal the result significantly less for the RSOD kitchen.

Energy usage was also significantly less for the RSOD model, however due to the CHP kitchen using more gas cooking equipment, this skewed the results as gas more CO2 equivalents than electricity. Overall tCO2-e/meal for the RSOD model was 7 times less than the CHP kitchen.

Water use was also averaged for daily use with the RSOD kitchen using eight times less per meal than the CHP kitchen.

Discussion:

While both hospitals use the same food contracts, the menus are significantly different, with the CHP Kitchen having a 14 day rotating menu and the RSOD Kitchen having a static one day menu with some rotating items (eg. Roast of the Day). The RSOD Kitchen had more beds (331 versus 253) and provided significantly more meals over the 7 day data collection period (8621 vs 3645). The RSOD kitchen also provided meals to an onsite Mental Health Unit consisting of three separate kitchenettes/serveries and dining rooms using a choice at point of service from bulk prepared food provided from the main kitchen.

As other studies have identified, Catering Departments in acute hospitals were the largest contributor to environmental impact of the hospital after heating (Keller, 2021), accounting for 17% of the total. Using foodservice systems such as RSOD that can reduce the environmental impost while also improving patient outcomes and satisfaction, while saving money (McCray 2018).

  1. McCray S, Maunder K, Mackenzie-Shalders K, 2018 Room service in a public hospital improves nutritional intake and increases patient satisfaction while decreasing food waste and cost. J Hum Nutr Diet 31:734-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12580
  2. Thiel CL, Park S, Musicus AA, Agins J, Gan J, Held J, et al. (2021) Waste generation and carbon emissions of a hospital kitchen in the US: Potential for waste diversion and carbon reductions. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247616
  3. Australian Government, 2023. Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors – for individuals and organisations estimating greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-greenhouse-accounts-factors-2023