the science of behavior and infrastructure in driving food...
TRANSCRIPT
___________________________________________________________________________
2016/PPFS/002 Agenda Item: 1.5
The Science of Behavior and Infrastructure in Driving Food Safety Culture
Purpose: Information
Submitted by: Kimberly-Clark
Policy Partnership on Food Security MeetingPiura, Peru
23-25 September 2016
10/14/2016
1
K-C Confidential
The Science of Behavior & Infrastructure in Driving
Food Safety CulturePhillip Jarpa
Kimberly-Clark ProfessionalSeptember 23, 2016
K-C Confidential
Why is this essential?
10/14/2016
2
K-C Confidential ̂CDC Foodborne Outbreak Tracking and Reporting
* Outbreak is defined as 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting from eating a common food
Approximately 800 outbreak events in the US without significant change
The CDC estimates that 1 in 6 people in the US suffer a foodborne illness annually
Source: CDC, WHO
Illnesses
Hospitalizations
Deaths
>48M >600M
Leading Organisms:Norovirus
CampylobacterE coli
Shigella
US GLOBAL
128,000
3,000 480,000
K-C Confidential
10/14/2016
3
K-C Confidential
Food workers are a major source of contamination
Meta-analysis of 66 outbreaks that occurred in the US between 1975 and 1998 found that 82% of the outbreaks implicated food workers as the source of contamination and, in 50% of the cases, hands were the source of pathogen transmission.1
Source: (1)Jensen et al. “Quantifying the Effect of Hand Wash Duration, Soap Use, Ground Beef Debris and Drying M ethods on the Removal of Enterobacter aerogenes on Hands.” J of Food Protection, 2015. (2) CDC
According to the CDC ~25-50% of food workers do not wash for the recommended time2.
K-C Confidential
Most people do not wash their hands correctly which creates a false sense of hygiene safety
Source: (1)New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Handwashing and Drying Duration Evidence for Efficacy, March 2009.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Duration of Handwashing vs. Efficacy1
E coli Shigella Serratia marcescens
10 sec 15 sec 30 sec
Mea
n lo
g re
duct
ion
Observational study in New Zealand mean hand washing
duration (1054 subjects) New Zealand Ministry of Health and US FDA recommends 20 sec for hand washing
CDC and APIC recommend 15 sec hand wash
10/14/2016
4
K-C Confidential
Hand hygiene compliance is a real risk in food processing.
Source: (1)GeoStrategy Partners Global survey of QA managers in Food Processing facilities. (Nov 2015); (2) Green, L.R. Factors Related to Food Worker Hand Hygiene Practices, Journal Food Protection, 2007.
33-73% of food facilities are out of compliance with proper hand washing procedures2.
38%
22%
21%
10%
9%
Contaminated raw materials
Improperly cleaned production lines (e.g.contaminated equipment/tools)
Poor personal hygiene behaviors byworkers in-shift, during breaks, and after
visiting the washroom
Non-compliance to hygiene protocols inthe hygiene station area
Non-compliance to cross-contaminationprotocols on the production line
Biggest concerns related to contamination risks1
(n=286)
Worker hygiene related risks total 31%
K-C Confidential
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail
Abraham MaslowPsychologist1908 - 1970
10/14/2016
5
K-C Confidential
Science of hygiene and transmission
Behavioral Science
Science of LEAN and 6-Sigma
By blending different scientific disciplines, we have identified relevant strategies to address hand hygiene compliance.
K-C Confidential
Behavioral science is an important, cost-effective tool to improve
hand hygiene compliance
10/14/2016
6
K-C Confidential
Subconscious processing drives about 95% of actual behaviorFast, reactive, automatic – 11 million bits per second
Conscious processing accounts for about 5% of actual behaviorThoughtful, controlled – 40 bits per second
hippocampusmemory and spatial awareness
amygdalaemotional processing & encoding
basal gangliamotor control & procedural learning
This is what brain science tells us about how we think…
K-C Confidential
Daniel KahnemanNobel Laureate & Psychologist
10/14/2016
7
K-C Confidential
K-C Confidential
Study 1: Guatemala Food Processing Plant
Pre-Test Observations:• Not enough time washing hands• Most workers (~100) trying to get through 2 hand hygiene stations in 15 minutes = long lines and
rushing steps• Improper hand hygiene post-toileting• Hand hygiene step perceived as “pre-work” vs. “work”
GOAL: Increase the compliance (time) & efficacy of hand washing & drying, thereby improving clean hands going into the factory floor
Subjects: 220 employees across 3 shifts Test period ~1 month
Phase 1: Baseline (8 days)Phase 2: Behavioral Science Intervention (12 days)Phase 3: No Intervention for (7 days)
Microbial Swab Hands conducted by external micro lab: 1150
10/14/2016
8
K-C Confidential
Study 1: Guatemala meat processing facility Hand Stamp Intervention
(We go with pre-set options)
• Introducing a stamp disrupts the default process
(We are influenced by subconscious cues)
• Stamp results in added friction & time spent washing
(Social expectation / norm with stamp appearance)
• Stamp and collateral helps create discuss and shame (if not removed)
(What is visually obvious to us drives our attention)
• Stamp makes visible when hands are clean or not
DEFAULT PRIMING AFFECT SALIENCE
K-C Confidential
~63% reduction in “dirty” hands and sustained reduction after intervention ceased
24.70%
9.10%
12%9.30%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Baseline Phase 1 (week 1) Phase 2 (week 2) Phase 3 (week 3)
% “
Dirt
y” H
ands
(>1
000
CFU
)
Source: Final report by Ogilv yChange on Guatemala study, 2015.
St amp usage stopped
10/14/2016
9
K-C Confidential
Significant reduction in “dirty” hands with night shift and stickiness after intervention ceased
20.00% 20.83%
40.63%
7.22%12.22% 12.50%
6.67%13.33% 10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Shift A Shift B Shift C
Percentage of workers in morning, afternoon and night shift returning a 'dirty hands' result
(Total Plate Count exceeding 1000UPC safe limit)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Source: Final report by Ogilv yChange on Guatemala study, 2015.
K-C Confidential
Study 2: Peru Dry Snack Food Processing Plant - Compliance Observations
Pre-Test Observations:• Not enough time washing hands (~5-8 sec)• Long lines cause people to rush (non-compliant) hygiene steps (queuing psychology)• Workers drying wet hands on uniform• Workers bypassing long lines
GOAL: Increase the compliance (time) & efficacy of hand washing & drying, thereby improving clean hands going into the factory floor
Subjects: ~250 employees across 2 shifts Test period ~1 month
Phase 1: Baseline (1 days)Phase 2: Behavioral Science Intervention – with “expert” on site (14 days)Phase 3: Behavioral Science Intervention – with no “expert” on site (ran by employees) (7
days)Microbial Swab Hands conducted by external micro lab
10/14/2016
10
K-C Confidential
Before the results, we need to establish thresholds…
Very Clean (<10 CFU/Hand)Acceptably Clean
(10 - 1000 CFU/Hand)
Actual count on image: 460 CFU/Hand
Dirty (1000 < CFU/Hand)
Actual count on images: 14000 and 24000 CFU/Hand
Lowest possible limit of detectionUnacceptable, requires immediate attention*
*Source: Swift Microbiological Labs for the Food Processing Industry
K-C Confidential
Study 2: Peru snack food processing facility (Using the hand stamp)
Source: Peru study conducted by SGS on behalf of Kimberly-Clark Corp, June 2016.
1st day of Hand Stampby external lab
55%
10% 3%
33%
80%
14%
12% 10%
83%
Sample I (June 16th) Sample II (June 24th) Sample III (July 1st)
TOTAL
Dirty (1000<) Accetpably Clean (10 - 1000) Very Clean (<10)
AddedCollateral
WorkersStamping themselves
(no one else on site)
95% reductionof “dirty hands”
~600% increaseof “clean hands”
10/14/2016
11
K-C Confidential
Drying Methods Affect Cross-Contamination Risk
K-C Confidential
Queuing psychology teaches us that people will not wait unless the perceived benefit > perceived cost (social pressure of others waiting).
We observed…Long lines waiting for air dryers caused many people to “finish drying” on their uniforms or skip washing altogether
10/14/2016
12
K-C Confidential
QA managers see several of the top contamination risks related to hand drying
33%
26%
23%
19%
Employees drying hands ontheir aprons/uniforms
Wet surfaces around the handwashing sink
A manual trigger on a soapdispenser that all employees
must push in order to get soap
Standing in a line with wethands waiting to reach
dryer/towels
Percent of first place rankings (n=277)
Employees [new or ot herwise] overlook rules, forget things—it’s just human nat ure. And t hey love t o bypass t he hand washing st ation. —QA Manager, WTI
Employees [new or ot herwise] overlook rules, forget things—it’s just human nat ure. And t hey love t o bypass t he hand washing st ation. —QA Manager, WTI
Source: (1)GeoStrategy Partners Global survey of QA managers in Food Processing facilities for Kimberly-Clark Corp (Nov 2015)
K-C Confidential
Bacteria are transported through moisture and the drying method is proven to impact cross-contamination.
Wet hands pick up and transfer up to 1,000 times the number of bacteria as dry hands and provide the moisture and warmth that bacteria
need to grow1
100%
26%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fully Wet
20 sec
45 sec
Transference of Microorganisms from Hands after Drying with Hot Air Dryer1
Average drying time observational study17 sec for men / 13 sec for women
Source: (1) New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Handwashing and Drying Duration Evidence for Efficacy, March 2009.
10/14/2016
13
K-C Confidential
So the drying method is critical to hand hygiene. Hand towels provide FRICTIONAL REMOVAL of microorganisms while air dryers DISPERSE SHARED
microorganisms onto hands.
Source: (1)Redway et al, “A comparative study of three different hand drying methods: paper towels, warm air dryer, jet air dryer.” European Tissue Symposium, 2008; (2) Jensen et al. “Quantifying the Effect of Hand Wash Duration, Soap Use, Ground Beef Debris and Drying Methods on the Removal of Enterobacter aerogenes on Hands.” J of Food Protection, 2015.
195
42
-76
254
15
-77-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Warm Air Dryer Jet Air Dryer Paper Towel
% Change in Microorganisms on Hands After Drying1
Finger Pads Palms
“Paper towels appear to offer an measurably significant benefit (0.5 log CFU greater reduction) when used after hand washing. Using paper towels to dry hands resulted in 1.9 +/-0.9 log CFU per wash reduction in E. aerogenes, which is significantly greater than air drying.”2
K-C Confidential
With a designated 10 sec dry, there was a 3.3X increase in clean hands with towels in our Peru in-situ study using new Jet Air Dryers.
Source: Peru study conducted by SGS on behalf of Kimberly-Clark Corp, June 2016.
14% 6%
79%75%
7%19%
AIR DRYER PAPER TOWEL
Dirty (1000<) Acceptibly Clean (10 - 1000) Very Clean (<10)
2.5x greaterodds of
DirtyHands**
3.3x greaterodds ofCleanHands*
10/14/2016
14
K-C Confidential
There seems to be a relationship between the type of drying method and self-declared contamination events
Total (N=301)
Paper towel (N=151)
Air dryer (N=143)
Within the past year 28% 19% 38%
Within the past 2 years 43% 30% 56%
Within the past 5 years 55% 41% 71%
Never 34% 50% 15%
When was the last time you had an event at the plant related to contamination or possible contamination?
Source: (1)GeoStrategy Partners Global survey of QA managers in Food Processing facilities for Kimberly-Clark Corp (Nov 2015)
K-C Confidential
The Science of Behavior & Infrastructure in Driving
Food Safety CulturePhillip Jarpa
Kimberly-Clark ProfessionalSeptember 23, 2016
10/14/2016
15
K-C Confidential
Conclusions for APEC
• Foodborne illness has a significant impact on health; and food safety incidents have significant impacts on trade and economic growth
• Proper hand hygiene is critical in preventing food safety incidents and should be an integral component of food safety system strengthening efforts
• As part of U.S. efforts to see that food safety measures are developed in a science-based manner, APEC economies should take into account lessons from behavioral science as essential to driving an improvement in hand hygiene compliance
• The 2009 WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care Settings provides a good basis for hand hygiene in food safety settings
• The hand drying method has a significant impact on hygiene
K-C Confidential
10/14/2016
16
K-C Confidential
APPENDIX
K-C Confidential
Approach: Use behavioral science to drive an improvement in hand hygiene compliance
1. Trigger a New Habit by making the right thing to do the easy thing to do
Behavior = Motivation x Ability x Trigger
Source: BJ Fogg, Stanford University.
• Cultural norms• Queuing for drying/washing• Existing training programs (what not why)• Skin disorders / contact dermatitis• Time hand washing is “unpaid”
10/14/2016
17
K-C Confidential
2. Tap into our innate human motives driven by heuristics
Approach: Use behavioral science to drive an improvement in hand hygiene compliance
K-C Confidential
10/14/2016
18
K-C Confidential
K-C Confidential
People have different attitudes, perceptions and cultural beliefs that drive their behavior
Unconcerned 14%
Casual Co-Ex isters 12%
Practical Protectors 8%
Relaxed M anagers
20%
Trad Cleaners 13%
Safe Seekers 11%
Proud Exterminators 8%
Fearful Fanatics 8%
Constantly conflicted 8%
Higher concern about impact of chemicals
Lower concern about impact of chemicals
Higher fear of germs
Lower fear of germs
Gen Pop Unconcerned Fearful Fanatics
I don’t understand why people are so worried about germs
43% 67% 9%
Careful food preparation is the best thing you can do to prevent illness
82% 69% 94%
I don’t like to seem too fussy about germs
62% 77% 19%
Daily cleans kitchen sink / bathroom sink
63% / 30%
-15% +20% / 35%
Hand washing per day 8.63 5.67 11.85
Source: Global Germ Segmentation study, Kimberly-Clark, 2013 (N>15,000).
Germ Concern
10/14/2016
19
K-C Confidential
18
QUANTITATIVE303 surveys
11 countries
30
18
19
78
41
UK
DE
THAILAND
3635
Chile
10108
Colombia
Peru
GeoStrategy Partners Research
K-C Confidential
Hand hygiene compliance is a real risk in food processing.
Source: GeoStrategy Partners Global survey of QA managers in Food Processing facilities; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic
FACILITIES VS RECALLS – USA
53
150
9
58
0
40
80
120
160
26,000
28,000
30,000
32,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
# Establishments Total Food Recalls Undeclared Allergen Recalls
40% Food Processing of companies have experience a contamination event in the last two years, with Worker’s Behavior as the #1
referenced cause for these events.
World’s #1 cause of Food recalls
10/14/2016
20
K-C Confidential
Source: Swift Microbiological Labs for the Food Processing Industry