2005 idaho baseline survey “gems of wisdom to consider and apply for baseline surveys”
TRANSCRIPT
2005 Idaho Baseline Survey
“Gems of Wisdom to Consider and Apply for Baseline Surveys”
Idaho Notes
• State Population = ~1.3 Million (2002)• ~30% of that population live in the Treasure
Valley (Boise, Nampa, Caldwell) area.• ~9,000 licensed food establishments in
state• 2002, Idaho became first state to have all
health jurisdictions enrolled in program standards
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
Panhandle
North Central
South Central
Central
Southeastern
District VII
Idaho Public Health Districts
Southwest
Relationship Between State and Districts
• State is designated authority to promulgate rules
• State provides technical and other support as well as training as requested
• State establishes overall goals of food safety program
• Districts are designated as regulatory authority
• Districts are contractually obligated to conduct inspections
• Set own (internal) QA goals and programs
Program Standards
• Many of the program standards are met through a “symbiotic relationship” with the districts
• Standard 1 – districts could not meet it until state met it
• Standard 6 – state cannot meet until all districts meet it
• Standard 9 (baseline) presented some significant concerns – cost, consistency
Different Approaches to Baseline
• Have each health district conduct their own baseline
• Have the state collect everything
• Ignore it – maybe it would have gone away
• Combine efforts to collect data and report on findings
FDA Auditor’s Class, July 2004
• Concerns about the Idaho baseline raised• “Why did you (state) enroll if your health
districts are the ones doing the inspections?”
• I asked the FDA clearinghouse about conducting one baseline, based on a weighted proportion of establishments, and allowing the districts to use the information to get credit for Standard 9
One Baseline Would Work IF:
• One set of intervention strategies identified and used by all agencies
• Study was proportionally divided to so that all agencies participated
• Statistically valid sample sizes maintained
• Data could not be interpreted to apply to individual districts
Overall Plan
• Collect an inventory from each district for each facility type involved with the baseline
• Determine proportion (specific to individual district) of total of each facility type
• Randomly assign establishments from inventory• Conduct baseline in conjunction with regular
inspections• 7 Facility types included
Methodology
• Suppose 50 surveys needed for baseline
• District X has 20% of all establishments
• District X assigned 10 of the 50 surveys (20%)
• 10 establishments randomly chosen of District X’s total inventory
• Randomization done with www.randomizer.org
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
30 (9.3%) 16 (5.0%)
52 (16.2%)85 (26.5%)
42 (13.1%)40 (12.5%)
Inventory Sizes – Elementary Schools (321 Total – 79 Needed for Baseline)
7 (8.9%)4 (5.1%)
13 (16.5%)21 (26.6%)
10 (12.7%)10 (12.7%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
56 (17.4%) 14 (17.7%)
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
33 (20.6%) 13 (8.1%)
15 (9.4%)39 (24.4%)
28 (17.5%)14 (8.8%)
Inventory Sizes – Produce Departments (160 Total – 63 Needed for Baseline)
13 (20.6%)5 (7.9%)
7 (11.1%)15 (23.8%)
11 (17.5%)6 (9.5%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
18 (11.3%) 7 (11.1%)
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
0 0
12 (21.0%)38 (66.7%)
5 (8.8%)0
Inventory Sizes – Seafood Departments (57 Total – 39 Needed for Baseline)
00
9 (23.1%)26 (66.7%)
3 (7.7%)0
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
2 (3.5%) 1 (2.6%)
General Results – IN Compliance
Facility TypeTime/temperature
controlContaminated
EquipmentPoor Personal
HygieneInadequate
Cook
Food From Unsafe Source
Elementary School 92.14% 94.68% 95.68% 97.98% 99.40%
Fast Food 83.27% 87.97% 91.36% 100% 99.40%
Full Service 72.51% 83.46% 82.94% 97.84% 98.47%
Deli Department 77.95% 84.98% 92.73% 96.80% 97.01%
Meat Department 89.74% 89.21% 92.70% 100% 98.46%
Produce Dep’t 88.63% 93.06% 90.98% 100% 100%
Seafood Dep’t 70.52% 97.38% 94.18% 75.00% 99.32%
Significant Out of Compliance Items
• Elementary Schools – RTE, PHF date marking – 18% out of compliance
• Produce Department – Cold holding at or below 41°F – 17.46% out of compliance
• Seafood Departments – commercially processed RTE, PHF date marked – 55% out of compliance
• RTE, PHF date marking – 58.82% out of compliance
Results
• There are some limitations with these results – will be discussed later
• Some of the percentages are high, but are based on only a few observations
• One of the most revealing results is the need for better information about inspection process and how to improve consistency
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
33 (18.5%) 9 (5.1%)
30 (16.9%)40 (22.5%)
26 (14.6%)17 (9.6%)
Inventory Sizes – Meat Departments (178 Total – 69 Needed for Baseline)
13 (18.8%)3 (4.3%)
12 (17.4%)15 (21.7%)
10 (14.5%)7 (10.1%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
23 (12.9%) 9 (13.0%)
Out of Compliance – Meat Depts.
• Cold holding – 26.74%
• Protection from environmental contamination – 14.49%
• Handwashing facility properly stocked – 14.49%
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
172 (11.2%) 60 (3.9%)
205 (13.4%)609 (39.8%)
172 (11.2%)156 (10.2%)
Inventory Sizes – Fast Service (1530 Total – 87 Needed for Baseline)
10 (11.5%)3 (3.4%)
12 (13.8%)35 (40.2%)
10 (11.5%)9 (10.3%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
156 (10.2%) 8 (9.2%)
Out of Compliance – Fast Service
• Cold holding – 26.74%
• Clean surfaces – 23.53%
• Poisons/toxics stored and identified correctly – 15.29% (We include this with the cross contamination risk factor)
• Proper, adequate handwashing – 13.33%
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
27 (17.6%) 9 (5.9%)
21 (13.7%)38 (25.5%)
24 (15.7%)13 (8.5%)
Inventory Sizes – Deli Departments (153 Total – 64 Needed for Baseline)
11 (17.2%)4 (6.3%)
9 (14.1%)16 (25.4%)
10 (15.6%)5 (7.8%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
21 (13.7%) 9 (14.1%)
Out of Compliance Deli Dept’s
• Cold holding – 33.85%• Clean surfaces – 29.69%• Hot holding (135°F) – 26.23%• Commercially processed RTE date marking –
24.00%• Proper, adequate handwashing – 17.24%• Protection from environmental contamination –
15.38%• RTE, PHF date marking – 18.52%
Boundary
Bonner
Kootenai
BenewahBenewah Shoshone
LatahLatah
Clearwater
Nez Perce
Lewis
Idaho
Adams
ValleyValley
Washington
Payette
Canyon
Boise
Ada
Owyhee
Twin Falls
Jerome
Blaine
Lincoln
Minidoka
Cassia
Power
OneidaFranklin
Bear Lake
Bannock
Caribou
Bingham
Lemhi
CusterClark Fremont
TetonJefferson Madison
Bonneville
Butte
Gooding
CamasElmore
Gem
303 (19.0%)121 (7.6%)
270 (16.9%)344 (21.6%)
131 (8.2%)243 (15.2%)
Inventory Sizes – Full Service (1594 Total – 87 Needed for Baseline)
17 (19.5%)7 (8.0%)
13 (14.9%)19 (21.8%)
7 (8.0%)13 (14.9%)
Total Inventory Baseline Inventory
182 (11.4%) 11 (12.6%)
Out of Compliance – Full Service
• Cold holding – 44.32%• Clean surfaces – 28.09%• Handwashing – 26.14%• RTE, PHF date marking –
35.59%• Bare hand contact –
21.84%• Toxics – 19.32%• RTE, PHF discarded at
proper time – 35.42%
• Raw/RTE foods separated – 20.00%
• Commercial RTE, PHF date marked – 31.91%
• Environmental contamination – 16.85%
• Handwash sink stocked – 14.77%
• Good hygienic practices – 14.63%
Limitations
• Several practices marked “not observed”
• Inconsistent interpretations of questions and answers on forms
• Potential misinterpretation of data
• Intervention strategies identified might not be applicable for all agencies
Not Observed
• Inadequate cooking had 12 possible observations
• Time/Temperature had 10 possible observations
• Personal hygiene had 5 possible observations
N/O for Elementary Schools
• Cooking – 61.7%
• Time/temperature – 36.7%
• Hygiene – 5.8%
N/O – Fast Service
• Cooking – 57%
• Time/temperature – 33.1%
• Hygiene – 9.3%
N/O - Deli
• Cooking – 56.7%
• Time/temperature 33.5%
• Hygiene – 5.3%
N/O – Full Service
• Cooking – 61.2%
• Time/temperature – 37.5%
• Hygiene – 2.3%
Why All the N/O Marks?
• Time of day – prep not taking place that late in the morning or afternoon
• Particular day – especially true for meat departments (risk factor practice not performed every day)
• Time spent collecting the data
Time for Data Collection
• Full service – 88.2 minutes
• Fast food – 55.4 minutes
• Elementary schools – 51.5 minutes
• Meat Dep’t – 50.4 minutes
• Deli Dep’t – 49.2 minutes
• Produce Dep’t – 37.0 minutes
• Seafood Dep’t – 30.8 minutes
Inconsistent Interpretations of Data Collection
• School and toxics held for retail sales
• Cooking of poultry
• Protection from environmental contamination
• Shellfish records and tags
Potential Misinterpretation of Data
• Full service – Hygienic practices out ~14%• This is not to suggest that 14% of full
service restaurants are out of compliance • This is the general interpretation applied
and it is not an accurate statement• Real interpretation is that 14% of the
observations that were made were out of compliance (2% of the total possible observations were not made)
Intervention Strategies
• Apply information from the study into food safety courses – all districts might not offer consistent food safety courses
• Training for EHS’s – districts employ different training techniques
• Commitment to standardized staff – presents time and resource issues for districts
Significant Results
• Cold holding is an issue – however, the requirement changed during the baseline survey
• Holding times (date marking)
• Cross contamination (especially surfaces and chemical storage)
• Personal hygiene
Now what?
• Each district provided with a copy of the report
• Study to be repeated in 5 years and compare data
• Begin implementing intervention strategies to help educate in order to reduce risk factors
• In the meantime, Idaho data collection looks like...
Current Data Collection
Risk Factor Violations
Follow-Up Inspections
Not Observed Risk Factors
Other Questions
Patrick Guzzle, Food Protection Program Manager
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(208) [email protected]