In order to focus on the food ser vice management of field practice, and obtained the basic data for future teaching, a survey on the training content.
(1) For the number of provided meals, less than 1000 meals and more than 1000 meals was 56.6% and 43.4%, respectively.
(2) Over 50% of the persons who practiced items was in preprocessing, cooking, meal-setting, providing, oral-communication, dishwashing and cleaning up the cafeteria. The work with emphasis on meal service management has been enforced.
For the ranking of each practiced item, preprocessing was washing vegetables and cutting vegetables, cooking was fry, boil, deep-frying, and mix, while meal setting was the side dish, soup, and main dish.
(3) The ranking of the work of the S group, which is school lunches was preprocessing, cooking, nutrition education, dishwashing, and seasoning measuring. In the meal service facilities, the A group experienced about 80% more which was meal setting, oral communication, providing, service, and cleaning. The B group experienced 100% which was preprocessing, cooking, meal setting, menu planning, oral communication, and order training. The B group was a standardized system of work in a place. The practice of B group was a standardized system.
(4) A comparison between the self-evaluation of campus and off-campus training was done. Compared to the campus practice, a significantly higher rating point for any item is clinical practice, thus the effect of the off-campus training practice is shown.
All of the self-evaluation points of field practice were significantly higher than the campus training evaluation. The effect of the off-campus training practice is shown.
(5) About the dietitians business, 91.2% of the total persons answered to “fully understand or almost understand”. The order of the higher degree of understanding was the B group, S group, A group. About food service management, 92.2% of the total persons answered “understanding very well and well”. Based on the evaluation points of each facility, the S group was high and the A group was lower.
The difference can be confirmed by the training contents of the each facility, thus the training of future leadership challenges became apparent. The difference between the training content can be confirmed by each facility, and the education problem in the future were revealed.
View full abstract