Environmental Public Health Journal 2015 | BCIT Institutional Repository

Environmental Public Health Journal 2015

Assessment of sous vide knowledge and inspection/cooking practices
Background: In September 2014, BCCDC developed “Guidelines for Restaurant Sous Vide Cooking Safety in British Columbia” providing Environmental Health Officers (EHO) and sous vide cooking chefs safety knowledge about sous vide cooking. To assess whether the guidelines improved sous vide safety knowledge, a study was conducted to examine and compare knowledge differences between EHOs and chefs who had read the guidelines to those who had not read the guidelines. Methods: An online survey was created and advertised by publishing on the BCCDC website, in newsletters and magazines (Vancouver Costal Health newsletter, Fraser Health news Letter, Chefs Quarterly magazine), and through e-mail distribution lists to EHOs and chefs, including chefs at Vancouver Community College. The questions in this survey were developed based on the guide-lines. T-tests and Chi square analyses were conducted to assess knowledge difference between those who read the guidelines and those who did not. Results: A total of 65 people completed the survey, including 45 EHOs (69.3%), 15 chefs (23%), and 5 others (7.7%). EHOs who read the guidelines had significantly higher average knowledge scores in the multiple choice section of the sous vide safety knowledge survey (p=0.00028, t-test) when compared to EHOs who had never read the guidelines. No differences were found in the true and false section (p=0.43925, t-test). With regard to inspection practices, EHO who read the guide-lines were more likely to frequently check for the internal temperature of sous vide foods, water bath temperature, time/temperature in the recipes, calibration of thermometer and proper labels on sous vide pouched foods than EHOs who never read the guidelines. Chefs who read the guidelines had similar average score as chefs who never read the guidelines in T/F (p=0.79878, t-test) and multiple choice (p=0.97, t-test). With regard to cooking practice, chefs who read the guidelines were more likely to frequently calibrate thermometers than chefs who never read the guidelines. However, chefs who never read the guidelines were more likely to frequently find their sous vide pouch floating dur-ing the cooking process, to check for internal temperature of sous vide food, and to label their sous vide pouch properly. Conclusion: These results show that EHOs who have read the sous vide guidelines have better sous vide knowledge in comparison to EHOs who have never read the guidelines. They are also more likely to have overall better inspection practices. Nevertheless, results show chefs who read the guidelines have similar sous vide knowledge in comparison to chefs who never read the guidelines. In terms of cooking practices, these chefs are likely to have better cooking practices only in certain areas., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2015., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Peer reviewed, Survey, Sous vide, Guideline, Inspection/cooking practices
Dinesafe Toronto
Background: The purpose of this research study was to analyse the success of Toronto’s placard system (Dinesafe) in reducing the number of violations in food service establishments. The placard system is designed to inform the public about restaurant inspection results and to boost operator compliance. Inspections are a point-in-time check of the facility’s ability to manage the risk it poses to public health. It is accepted that if best practices are implemented as designed by an establishment’s food safety and sanitation plan, the risk of a foodborne illness/outbreak can be minimized. Methods: From the Dinesafe program, the number of violations cited at each inspection from all relevant food service establishments receiving a conditional pass from two time periods, 2004-2006 (Before) and 2012-2014 (After), were compared to see if there was a decrease in violations. The reports, completed by Public Health Inspectors (PHI), were retrieved from a publicly available website. Data were analysed using a two-sample T-test. Results: The anticipated decrease in violations in the second time frame was not significant [p = 0.85] nor strong (α = 0.001). The means were similar (3.83 Before and 3.71 After), with standard deviations of 1.91 and 1.79 respectively. A greater number of restaurants were cited in the After analysis (3169 compared to 572). Inspections from 2004-2006 had fewer violations (12 or less) than 2012-1014 (14 or less). The majority of violations (71% Before and 73% After) were between 2 and 4. Reoffenders comprised of 16.3% of total violations in 2004-2006 and 17.5% in 2012-2014. Conclusion: There is no evidence that the placard system has decreased violations or that counting the number of violations a good measure for compliance. Pushback among operators could explain the increase in the number of establishments cited. The increase in maximum citation could be due to an increase in citations available from 2012-2014. The number of establishments that received a conditional pass twice in a time frame increased from 59% to 68%. The maximum number of times an establishment received a conditional pass dropped from 10 to 8. It is recommended that Health Units use plain language narrative on the website rather than violations as a measure to communicate findings to the public. The placard significance should be better communicated to the public., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2015., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Peer reviewed, Placard, Restaurant, Inspection, Toronto, Conditional pass, Dinesafe, Foodborne illness