TABLE 2
Reported Frequency by Survey Respondents of Methods Used for Assessing Food Preparation Points and Processes
Food Preparation Points and Processes
Test Knowledge # (%)
Observe Practices # (%)
Observe Food or Equipment # (%)
Review Records # (%)
Review Procedures # (%)
Measure Temperature # (%)
Measure Time # (%)
Other # (%)
Allergen control ( n = 191) Water treatment ( n = 184) Cooking ( n = 222) Thawing ( n = 209) Low-temperature cooking ( n = 206)
178 (93.2)
–
141 (73.8)
–
158 (82.7)
–
–
49 (25.7)
122 (66.3)
–
112 (60.9)
150 (81.5)
142 (77.2)
–
–
72 (39.1)
215 (96.8) 199 (95.2)
– – –
–
184 (82.9) 115 (55.0)
169 (76.1) 173 (82.8) 194 (94.2)
162 (73.0)
– –
18 (8.1%)
158 (75.6)
–
8 (3.8)
–
89 (43.2)
–
117 (56.8)
88 (42.7)
40 (19.4)
Preparation for post-kill step ( n = 214)
202 (94.4)
207 (96.7)
154 (72.0)
–
–
–
–
19 (8.9)
Cooling ( n = 221)
211 (95.5) 203 (94.9)
– –
–
188 (85.1)
201 (91.0) 188 (87.9)
– –
80 (36.2)
28 (12.7) 29 (13.6)
Preparation of ready- to-eat foods ( n = 214) Time control ( n = 216) Hot holding ( n = 222) Cold storage ( n = 223)
164 (76.6)
–
–
208 (96.3) 207 (93.2) 202 (90.6)
– – –
– – –
186 (86.1) 194 (87.4) 204 (91.5)
187 (86.6)
–
75 (34.7)
15 (6.9) 18 (8.1) 22 (9.9)
– –
212 (95.5) 216 (96.9)
– –
ment adequacy. Australian inspectors were significantly less likely than others to regularly assess cooking adequacy, with 61% of Aus- tralian respondents reporting never doing so. In contrast, UK inspectors were significantly more likely to assess cooking adequacy than others, with 33% of UK respondents stating they always make this assessment. Inspectors from the U.S. were significantly less likely to regularly assess allergen control, with 48% reporting never doing so, while UK inspectors (65%) were significantly more likely than oth- ers to always assess allergen control. Assessing water treatment adequacy is the final area of significant variation identified, with 35% of U.S. inspectors never making this assessment and 76% of UK inspectors always doing so. Some comments provided via the open-ended text field suggest this variation could be because the responsibility for making these assessments falls to other health protection authorities in some coun- tries. Cross-tabulations and calculations are provided in Supplemental Table 5. Respondents reported a variety of meth- ods for assessing the control and adequacy of food preparation points and processes. Again,
respondents were requested to select all appli- cable methods they use to make these assess- ments and to elaborate or specify alternative methods via an open-ended text field. The fre- quency of reported assessment methods is pro- vided in Table 2. A count of thematically clas- sified answers provided via the open-ended text field are presented in Table 3. Tables 2 and 3 show that inspectors relied on a variety of methods to assess food prepa- ration points and processes. Testing knowl- edge of food business sta, reviewing the food handling procedures of the business, and reviewing food safety records kept by the business were the most common meth- ods used by inspectors. When taking into account Figure 2, Tables 2 and 3 show that when considering the two most commonly assessed food handling points—cold storage and hot holding of foods—inspectors were more likely to include temperature measure- ment in their assessment methods. In con- trast, when assessing the least commonly assessed food handling processes—allergen control and water treatment—inspectors were more likely to include laboratory analy- sis in their assessment methods.
business, and c) food handling procedures of the business.
Assessment of Food Preparation Points and Processes
Respondents were asked to report how regu- larly they assess the adequacy of food prepa- ration points and processes. Here, a food preparation point was defined as a food prep- aration step that can have critical influence on the safety of the food being produced, while a process was defined as a sequence of food preparation steps. Cold and hot food storage adequacy were the most regularly assessed food preparation points reported by respondents, while allergen control and water treatment adequacy were the least regularly assessed food preparation processes. The reg- ularity of assessing food preparation points and processes is detailed in Figure 2. The regularity of assessing food preparation points and processes was each cross-tabulated against respondent country, training, and experience. Statistically significant variance was found among the countries in the regu- larity of their inspectors assessing cooking adequacy, allergen control, and water treat-
27
May 2024 • our6*l o/ 6=2ro6me6;*l e*l;1
Powered by FlippingBook