ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
FIGURE 2
Regularity of Assessing Food Preparation Points and Processes at a Food Business
Cold Storag e Adeq uacy ( n = 223) Hot Storag e Adeq uacy ( n = 222) Time Control Adeq uacy ( n = 217) P reparation Adeq uacy of R eady-to-Eat Foods ( n = 218) Cooling P rocess Adeq uacy ( n = 222) P reparation Adeq uacy for P ost-K ill Step ( n = 216) L ow Temperature Cooki ng Adeq uacy ( n = 217)
Thawing Adeq uacy ( n = 213) Cooki ng Adeq uacy ( n = 224)
W ater Treatment Adeq uacy ( n = 209) Allerg en Control Adeq uacy ( n = 212) 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
% of Respondents
Never
Sometimes
Approximately One Half of the Time
Most of the Time Always
Food Safety Inspection: Areas of Focus and Methods of Assessment
TABLE 1
Food Safety Culture Assessment Survey respondents indicated that food safety culture was regularly assessed as part of a food safety inspection, with 51% of respon- dents reporting that they always make this assessment. The regularity of assessing food safety culture when undertaking a food safety inspection is presented in Figure 1. Respondents were invited to select all methods that they used to assess food safety culture and to provide elaboration and alter- native answers via an open-ended text field. The frequency of reported assessment meth- ods and a count of thematically categorized answers provided via the open-ended text field are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that inspectors rely on a variety of methods to assess food safety cul- ture when conducting food safety inspec- tions. To make assessments of food safety cul- ture, it is common for inspectors to combine testing the knowledge of food business sta with reviewing a) compliance history of the business, b) food safety records kept by the
Reported Frequency by Survey Respondents of Methods Used for Assessing Food Safety Culture (n = 220)
Method
Respondent Frequency # (%)
Test the knowledge of food handlers on safe food handling procedures
212 (96.4) 173 (78.6) 180 (81.8) 202 (91.8)
Review food safety plans and procedures of the food business
Review food safety records kept by the food business
Review compliance history of the food business
Other
47 (21.4)
Note. The following methods were indicated by survey respondents ( n = 17) in the open-ended text field: observation (6), attitude assessment (5), discussion (5), test knowledge (2), compliance history (1), records (1), and uncategorized (1). Survey responses from the questions with preformed answers and open-ended text fields to indicate methods used to assess food safety culture are presented separately. While the responses might be similar, the motivations of respondents are unclear in electing to provide their responses in the open-ended text field. To respect the choice of respondents to provide answers via the open-ended text field and to avoid any assumptions, the presentation of answer types has been kept separate.
primarily responsible for regulating food businesses (Supplemental Table 2). In addi- tion, a majority of survey respondents held a bachelor’s degree or postgraduate degree in a field relevant to food safety inspection
(Supplemental Table 3) and had >20 years of experience performing food safety inspec- tions, with more than one third of respon- dents being in this category (Supplemental Table 4).
26
Volume 86 • Number 9
Powered by FlippingBook