HomeMy WebLinkAboutFood Safety Program (PDF) 1 of 3
Jefferson County Public Health
Performance Measures 2011 Year-End Report
FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM
MISSION: The mission of the Food Safety Program is to minimize the risk of the spread of disease from
improperly prepared, stored or served foods handled in commercial retail settings and community events.
GOALS FOR FY 2011
1. Provide classroom food safety instruction for all food service workers.
2. Assure minimum sanitary standards are observed in all food service establishments and
establishments operate in compliance with codes.
3. Provide basic food safety information to the general public.
OBJECTIVES FOR FY 2011
1. Offer food safety training at a frequency and in locations convenient to food service workers.
2. Review all new food service establishments for compliance with state and county requirements.
3. Inspect all food service establishments at a frequency adequate to assure compliance with state and
local regulatory requirements.
4. Offer educational materials and technical assistance to non-regulated community groups and
organizations where requested.
5. Prevent septic system failures at food establishments by assisting with enforcement of operations and
monitoring requirements.
6. Provide additional education to food workers through food/tobacco newsletters and other methods.
FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM STATISTICS
Food Worker Education 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Planned
2011
Actual
Total # of food workers trained 1,128 1,044 1,100 1,205 1,314 1,137 1269 1,250 1,367
# of Food Workers trained in class 1,128 1,044 1,100 1,205 1,314 1,137 1,269 -- 674
# of Food Workers trained on-line New Category Added in 2011 693
# of food worker classes at Health Department 52 52 52 52 52 61 82 60 42
# of food worker classes at other locations 18 20 25 35 31 21 10 6 9
# of Instructor-led classes 70 72 77 87 83 82 92 66 51
Annual Food Service Establishments 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Planned
2011
Actual
% of required inspections completed New Category Added in 2009 83% 85% 85% 97%
# of food establishment permits 240 265 270 270 237 228 235 210 232
# of complex menu food establishments New Category Added in 2011 111
# of non-complex menu food establishments New Category Added in 2011 121
# of required inspections completed 360 352 352 350 217 299 249 309 331*
# of re-inspections required due to critical
violations. 32 33 70 45 0 34 6 30 2
# of Pre-opening Inspections done New Category Added in 2011 41
# of complaints received and resolved 20 25 35 33 -- -- -- -- 32
* Routine Inspections Only. Pre-opening inspections and complaint inspections were removed from this category and individually
categorized.
2 of 3
Temporary Food Service Establishments 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Planned
2011
Actual
# of temporary food service permits 73 75 80 85 17 74 82 80 147
Food Program Administrative Tasks 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Planned
2011
Actual
# of establishments receiving Outstanding
Achievement Awards 28 41 43 40 89* 38 40 33 40
# of plan reviews done New Category Added in 2011 43
# of plan reviews that opened New Category Added in 2010 16 24 41
* Awards not issued this year due to staff changes. Number reflects the would-be recipients.
SUMMARY OF KEY FUNDING/SERVICE ISSUES
Food Safety Program activities are funded solely through permit and technical assistance fees.
Food Worker Education
The food worker education options broadened in June providing not only staff provided classes but also
on-line classes.
Annual Food Service Establishments
The percent of completed required food inspections are now more in line with expectations.
The number of permitted establishments as been relatively stable since 2008.
This is the first year that we are tracking the number of plan review completed for new or remodeled
establishment or from a change of ownership in an establishment.
Temporary Food Service Establishments
Early in the year, it was determined that there were two items in the food fee schedule that needed
attention: a discrepancy related to permitting temporary events, and two categories with incorrect fees.
Initial review of the statistics for temporary food permits would presume that 2011 had a significant
increase in temporary events.
Food Program Administrative Tasks
The team determined that the existing database is not adequate to meet the needs of the program. The
program intends to switch from KIPHS to Tidemark sometime early in 2012.
STUDY/ANALYSIS
Funding of the program became particularly highlighted when the fee schedule was opened for changes
this year before the Board of Health. Food establishment owners that attended or participated in the
discussion were overwhelmingly concerned about shrinking profits and increasing operating costs,
including permit fees. Environmental Health has made a commitment to evaluate our programs to ensure
that fees are in line with appropriate program expenses.
Food Worker Education
The overall number of food workers trained is the highest number that has ever been recorded. This is
partly due to the implementation of the on line food worker card program. Since June, when on-line
classes became available, approximately 50% of the total workers trained were on-line. The number of
instructor-led classes was also reduced by 45%. This option minimized staff time devoted to this task, at
the expense of completing other priorities in the program.
Upon initial start up there were complaints of food workers accessing a fraudulent websites instead of the
authorized Washington State site. Staff has worked to educate managers and food workers through mass
e-mails, press releases and on site discussions. Fortunately these instances of fraud have been fairly
isolated to a short period after implementation. The negative aspect of this is that it limits the time the
food inspector meets with food workers in a non regulatory environment in which educational interaction
can be most constructive.
3 of 3
Annual Food Service Establishments
The percent of required inspections completed increased 10% (from 87% in 2010 to 97% in 2011). This
can be attributed to the increased staffing provided to the program in 2011 and detailed separation of
tasks that allowed for efficiencies.
o One person was assigned to complete the plan review and temporary permit review together with
specific planned temporary inspections as assigned by the primary food inspector.
o The primary food inspector primarily taught food worker classes and completed required
inspections.
o Weekly meetings of the team brought relevant issues for discussion to the team for evaluation and
determination.
o The team members were able to refer any issues/conflicts with food managers or owners directly
to the Lead. This saved staff time in elimination of lengthy interaction with the public on code
interpretation or fee concerns.
Plan review, when done properly can preempt food establishment deficiencies that will augment food
safety practices. For that reason we have added it as an item in the table. Future evaluation should be
done to determine the significance of this task to overall work load.
Annual operation and monitoring inspections required of food establishments connected to on-site septic
systems was implemented for the first time this year. Overall, it was a year of persistent messaging,
oversight, and tracking. With consistent education and training, this will eventually become standard
procedure and will lead to better preventative failure of septic systems serving food establishments.
Temporary Food Service Establishments
Considerable evaluation of the temporary fee structure was undertaken to find an equitable solution for
the public that also allowed for consistent compliance with State Codes. Efforts included:
o A survey of the temporary food permit process and associated fee schedules in adjoining counties;
o Analysis of our fee structure including undertaking a time study;
o A presentation to both the Food Roundtable and the Board of Health; and
o Interaction with DOH.
Under considerable pressure, a new fee proposal was presented to the Board of Health and adopted in
July which added additional categories to the temporary permit fees and corrected previously identified
fee categories.
Upon thorough evaluation of the temporary permit numbers from past years to 2011 it became evident
that past tracking had been incorrect. The number of permits issued almost doubled in 2011. This
finding validates what was previously expressed from fee discussions and past practices disregarding the
requirement to permit all temporary events.
Food Program Administrative Tasks
The food team met via webcam with the onsite/drinking water program contracted Tidemark database
consultant, and food program representatives from Clallam and Mason Counties. We met to analyze the
use of Tidemark as a regional program for food permitting. Mason County already uses Tidemark and
their program fields were used as a baseline for evaluation. The decision was made to work toward
transitioning from KIPS into a Tidemark platform as soon as funding could be determined.
The team approach in the food program continues to provide a benefit both to staff and to the public in
allowing consistent interpretation of code and shared work to ensure goals for planning, permitting and
inspecting are met.
Updated: March 1st, 2012