ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
TABLE 3
Reported Frequency by Survey Respondents of Methods Used for Assessing Food Preparation Points and Processes via the Open-Ended Text Field
Food Prepara- tion Points and Pro- cesses
Test Knowledge # (%)
Observation # (%)
Discussion # (%)
Attitude Assessment # (%)
Review Records # (%)
Review Procedures and Processes # (%)
Measure # (%)
Review History # (%)
Laboratory Analysis # (%)
Intuition # (%)
Unclassified # (%)
Allergen control ( n = 49) Water treatment ( n = 71) Cooking ( n = 17) Thawing ( n = 8)
3 (6.1)
6 (12.2)
3 (6.1)
–
6 (12.2)
7 (14.2)
–
–
25 (51.0)
–
8 (16.3)
2 (2.8)
1 (1.4)
1 (1.4)
–
4 (5.6)
8 (11.3)
1 (1.4)
–
52 (73.2)
–
9 (12.7)
1 (5.9)
6 (35.3)
2 (11.8)
–
–
–
1 (5.9)
1 (5.9)
3 (17.6)
–
4 (23.5)
4 (50.0)
1 (12.5)
–
–
1 (12.5)
–
–
–
–
2 (25.0)
Low- temperature
4 (10.0)
1 (2.5)
13 (32.5)
–
10 (25.0)
7 (17.5)
3 (7.5)
–
5 (12.5)
–
7 (17.5)
cooking ( n = 40)
Preparation for post-kill step ( n = 19)
–
3 (15.8)
2 (10.5)
–
1 (5.3)
3 (15.8)
2 (10.5)
–
4 (21.1)
–
4 (21.1)
Cooling ( n = 28)
1 (3.6)
5 (17.9)
7 (25.0)
–
3 (10.7)
2 (7.1)
10 (35.7) 1 (3.4)
–
1 (3.6)
–
5 (17.9)
Preparation of ready-to- eat foods ( n = 29) Time control ( n = 15) Hot holding ( n = 18) Cold storage ( n = 51)
–
2 (6.9)
3 (10.3)
–
4 (13.8)
7 (24.1)
–
7 (24.1)
–
8 (27.6)
–
1 (6.7)
4 (26.7)
–
3 (20.0)
–
4 (26.7)
–
2 (13.3)
–
3 (20.0)
–
6 (33.3)
1 (5.6)
–
3 (16.7)
1 (5.6)
4 (22.2)
–
2 (11.1)
–
3 (16.7)
1 (2.0)
16 (31.4)
8 (15.7)
9 (17.6)
5 (9.8)
1 (2.0)
3 (5.9)
–
2 (3.9)
1 (2.0)
6 (11.8)
Note. Survey responses from the questions with preformed answers and open-ended text fields for methods to assess food preparation points and processes are presented separately in Tables 2 and 3. 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.
The dierence between the methods used to assess the food preparation points and pro- cesses highlights dierences in the data gath- ered, the character of compliance criteria, and the extent of professional discretion required to determine adequacy. While the two most commonly assessed food preparation points can be measured in situ (i.e., using a ther- mometer to yield a numerical value that can be directly compared with compliance cri- teria), the two least commonly assessed pro- cesses require the acquisition of a sample for
laboratory analysis—meaning results are not immediately available during the inspection. Thus, for inspectors to assess these processes during the inspection, they must rely on prox- ies to determine adequacy such as sta knowl- edge, observation, and procedures that cannot be directly compared with compliance criteria. Tables 2 and 3 also highlight that while a variety of methods were being used to assess food preparation points and processes dur- ing inspections, the methods appear to be deployed to establish the capability of a food
business to achieve compliance, rather than to gather data on the capacity of the food business to sustain control over time. This finding is demonstrated particularly by the frequency of methods used for assessing cold storage and hot holding of foods. Here, review of procedures and discussions with food business sta are methods rarely applied by inspectors to assess these food preparation points, but they are essential for gathering comprehensive data about the capacity of the food business to sustain control over time.
28
Volume 86 • Number 9
Powered by FlippingBook