|
CFSAN/Retail Food Safety Team
DRAFT: February 6, 1998;
DRAFT: April 24, 2001;
DRAFT: June 28, 2001;
DRAFT: April 2003; DRAFT: January 2005; DRAFT: December 2007
For state, local & tribal regulators to register on-line for free access to web courses, go to:
(to be completed during the 25 joint inspection period AND prior to conducting any independent inspections)
PUBLIC HEALTH PRINCIPLES Food Microbiological Control (series): 1. Overview of Microbiology (60) MIC01 2A. Gram-Negative Rods (60) MIC02 2B. Gram-Positive Rods & Cocci (90) MIC03 3. Foodborne Viruses (60) MIC04 4. Foodborne Parasites (90) MIC05 Mid-Series Exam (30) MIC16 5. Controlling Growth Factors (90) MIC06 6. Control by Refrigeration & Freezing (60) MIC07 7A. Control by Thermal Processing (90) MIC08 7B. Control by Pasteurization (90) MIC09 10. Aseptic Sampling (90) MIC13 12. Cleaning & Sanitizing (90) MIC15 |
PREVAILING STATUTES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES Basics of Inspection: Beginning an Inspection (90) FDA38
Issues & Observations (90) FDA39 An Introduction to Food Security Awareness (60) FD251 COMMUNICATION SKILLS |
(to be completed prior to Standardization AND within 18 months of hire or assignment to the regulatory retail food program)
MICROBIOLOGY HACCP |
EPIDEMIOLOGY Foodborne Illness Investigations (series): 1. Collecting Surveillance Data (90) FI01 2. Beginning the Investigation (90) FI02 3. Expanding the Investigation (90) FI03 4. Conducting a Food Hazard Review (90) FI04 5. Epidemiological Statistics (90) FI05 6. Final Report (30) FI06 |
To provide application of skills and transfer of web instruction to the jurisdiction's work environment, although not required at this time, it is recommended that FSIOs complete one of the following three options within 18 months of hire or assignment to the regulatory retail food program:
* Under construction
( ) Average time in minutes required to take the course, 60 minutes equals .1 CEU, 90-120 minutes equals .2
CEUs
Estimated total hours for
"Pre" courses are 42 hours.
Estimated total hours for
"Post" courses are 16 hours.
Estimated total hours for
completion of all Program Standard #2 coursework are 54 hours
The Conference for Food Protection (CFP) has progressed through several stages in the development of a nationally recognized process for training and standardizing regulatory Food Safety Inspection Officers (FSIO) responsible for inspections of institutional foodservice, restaurant, and retail food establishments. Research conducted by the CFP work group charged with addressing this issue revealed that existing training and standardization programs for FSIOs are as varied as the number of regulatory jurisdictions throughout the country. What has been lacking is a nationally recognized training and standardization process for FSIOs that can be used as a model to enhance the effectiveness of regulatory retail food program inspections and increase uniformity among regulatory professionals in their assessment of industry's food safety practices.
The CFP Program Standards Committee was charged with using the FDA Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards, Standard #2 - Trained Regulatory Staff, as a model for developing a multi-tiered approach for training and standardizing FSIOs. The CFP Program Standards Committee assembled a work group to address this specific charge. The criteria contained in the 5-step training and standardization process presented in Program Standard #2 reflects this multi-tiered approach. An innovative and critical component of this multi-tiered process is the inclusion of an Assessment of Training Needs (ATN) as part of the joint field training inspections in Step 2 of the Standard.
Training is most effective when it is delivered within the context or environment within which the individual would be expected to apply the knowledge and skills required of the job task. For FSIOs, the appropriate training environment is one that mirrors the actual experience of inspecting retail food, restaurant, and/or institutional foodservice establishments.
The primary purpose of the ATN as described in Program Standard #2 is to establish a structured approach (a national model) for field training of regulatory retail food program inspection staff that is to be part of a continuous improvement process. New hires and/or individuals newly assigned to the regulatory retail food program require consistent training related to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) that not only involve technical food safety principles, but also include competencies in the areas of oral and written communication.
Consistent and on-going feedback on key inspection related performance elements is the cornerstone of the ATN process. No one inspection/training exercise is used to determine a FSIOs readiness to conduct independent retail food and foodservice inspections. Rather the ATN process and forms are designed to enable the candidate to demonstrate a consistent pattern of behavior in KSAs identified as important for conducting effective regulatory retail food program inspections.
The ATN has been designed to evaluate specific performance elements within 6 categories:
The performance elements for each of the 6 categories were derived from research of current regulatory retail food program training curriculums and competency areas. The CFP work group reviewed training programs/competencies developed by the State of California; Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; New York Department of Health; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and the Rhode Island Department of Health. Other resources included the Southwest Region Training Plan that has appeared as Appendix K in previous versions of the FDA National Voluntary Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards and FDA's Level I Investigator Performance Audit criteria.
Each of the performance elements included in the ATN received a comprehensive review by the CFP work group comprised of psychometricians and representatives from state and local regulatory retail food programs; industry trade associations; retail food and foodservice operations; and academia. The performance elements were assessed by the CFP work group to ascertain their:
The ATN forms and protocol contained in this document represent the culmination of the research and review by subject matter experts that comprise the CFP Program Standards work group assigned the charge of developing a training and standardization protocol for state and local regulatory retail food program inspection staff. The ATN protocol and forms are still considered working documents. Enhancements will be based on input from regulatory, industry, academia and consumer stakeholder groups through a process that includes the Conference for Food Protection to allow for on-going program improvement and promotion of national uniformity.
Flexibility has been built into the ATN to allow regulatory jurisdictions the ability to customize training so that it reflects a jurisdiction's administrative policies, sampling procedures, and inspection protocol. Instructions on how to use, and if appropriate, customize the process to specific jurisdictional needs are presented later in this document.
The Assessment of Training Needs (ATN) provides forms to assist food program managers/trainers with a structured approach for determining whether a FSIO has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform specific competencies related to retail food and foodservice inspections.
These forms are an integral part of a training process that provides both the candidate and the trainer feedback on specific elements of effective institutional foodservice, restaurant, and retail food store inspections.
Used for its intended purpose, the ATN addresses a significant gap in existing regulatory retail food training programs. It provides a structure for preparing a FSIO to conduct independent retail food and foodservice inspections. It is NOT a test or audit but an on-going field assessment of training that focuses on a candidate's continuous improvement.
In addition, the ATN provides critical feedback to program managers and trainers on the effectiveness of their retail food training and orientation process. Competencies (criteria) that are not consistently performed well by FSIOs may be an indication that the regulatory jurisdiction has significant gaps in their training program, coursework, or materials used to prepare staff for field inspections. The ATN provides a framework for assessing and strengthening existing regulatory retail food training programs.
The ATN provides regulatory retail food protection programs with performance elements upon which to make sound assessments of a FSIO's understanding of their job responsibilities, as well as their ability to consistently apply those knowledge elements within the environment of retail food and foodservice inspections.
All new employees or individuals new to the regulatory retail food protection program must complete a field training process similar to the one presented in this document. The Program Standard #2 criteria require a FSIO to complete specified pre-requisite coursework prior to conducting independent inspections. Program Standard #2 does not stipulate any pre-requisite coursework (curriculum) for participating in the ATN.
Completion of pre-requisite coursework, particularly training in the jurisdiction's prevailing statutes, regulations, and/or ordinances should be considered when making a determination as to when to begin the ATN process. In addition, it is highly recommended that an appropriate number of demonstration (trainer-led) inspections be conducted prior to the ATN to provide the candidate an opportunity to observe an experienced FSIO perform specific inspection elements that will be included in the field training process. The jurisdiction's trainer, or designated staff member, is responsible for determining when the ATN process should be initiated.
An ATN should be conducted when an experienced FSIO joins, or is assigned to, the regulatory retail food program staff. In order to accommodate experienced FSIOs, the Program Standard #2 criteria allows a waiver of the 25 joint inspections if the food program manager/trainer includes a signed statement or affidavit in the employee's training file explaining the background and/or experience that justifies the waiver. In lieu of the 25 joint field training inspections, an ATN is required to determine if any performance elements are in need of improvement.
The management of the regulatory retail food protection program has the discretion of deciding who will serve as the assessor and conduct the ATN. The jurisdiction's assessor, or designated staff member, must have completed all the training and standardization elements (Steps 1 - 4) required in Program Standard #2 - Trained Regulatory Staff.
Two forms are used during the Assessment of Training Needs:
The Field Training Worksheet is to be used as a training tool during the joint field training inspections. The Documentation of Successful Completion is used at the end of the joint field training inspection process to document a FSIOs successful completion of the field training process and readiness to conduct independent retail food and foodservice inspections.
Overview of the Field Training Worksheet The Field Training Worksheet is presented in Attachment A to Appendix B-2 and contains a representative baseline of competencies (criteria) expected to be performed by state, local, and tribal FSIOs. As its name implies, the Field Training Worksheet is the form that is to be used during joint field training inspections to provide the FSIO continuous feedback as to their strengths/weaknesses for specific performance elements. All performance elements that are applicable to the FSIO's inspection responsibilities must be evaluated during the Assessment of Training Needs (ATN).
Description of the Header Information on the Field Training Worksheet The Field Training Worksheet contains basic header information that should be completed for each joint field inspection for which it is used.
Establishment Name: The full name of the establishment where the ATN is conducted.
Establishment Address: The full address of the establishment where the ATN is conducted.
Permit #: The regulatory jurisdiction's food permit number or identification code for the establishment where the ATN is conducted.
Date: The date the ATN is conducted at the establishment.
Time In: The time the ATN is started at the selected establishment.
Time Out: The time the ATN is completed at the selected establishment.
Note: A pilot project to evaluate the ATN process is planned for 2006-2007. An important component of that project will be to obtain data on the amount of time needed to perform a field ATN. From that data, jurisdictions will have a basis for developing work plans that incorporate the appropriate amount of time to conduct field training of regulatory retail food protection program staff.
Food Safety Inspection Officer Name (FSIO): The name of the trainee FSIO being trained.
FSIO's Agency: The name of jurisdiction for which the FSIO (trainee) is employed.
Assessor's Name: The name of the trainer or the jurisdiction's designated individual who has completed all the Program Standard #2 training and standardization requirements (Steps 1-4) performing the evaluation of the FSIO on the performance elements that comprise the Field Training Worksheet.
Assessor's Agency: The regulatory jurisdiction where the assessor is employed. The assessor may work for a different jurisdiction than the FSIO being trained.
Performance Elements The Field Training Worksheet includes 6 inspection training areas in which a FSIO must demonstrate acceptable performance.
The FSIO (trainee) must take the lead during joint field training inspections when an ATN is being performed. Taking the lead means the FSIO is responsible for:
The Field Training Worksheet contains 25 "performance elements" sorted among the 6 inspection training areas.
Performance elements appear in the shaded areas of the tables on the Field Training Worksheet in Attachment A.
Though the overwhelming majority of the 25 identified performance elements apply to every jurisdiction, there may be a few instances where select performance elements may not be part of a FSIO's job responsibilities. For example, FSIOs in some jurisdictions may not have responsibility for collecting aseptic food or water samples.
In preparing to conduct an ATN, the assessor/trainer should identify those performance elements that are not applicable to the FSIO's job responsibilities within the jurisdiction. These performance elements can be removed from the Field Training Worksheet or the assessor/trainer may simply choose to circle "not applicable " (NA) in the adjoining box on the Field Training Worksheet as depicted in the following illustration.
| 2. Uses an aseptic food sample collection method consistent with criteria established by laboratory serving the jurisdiction. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|
If the performance element is part of the FSIO's job responsibility it must be assessed. Performance elements that are applicable to the FSIO's job tasks can not be arbitrarily removed or deleted from the Field Training Worksheet.
The specific competencies/criteria listed under each performance element are intended to serve as examples of observations that can be used to assess a FSIO during joint field training inspections.
As an example, six specific criteria are provided for assessing the FSIO's use of inspection equipment.
Performance Element
Correctly uses inspection equipment during the joint inspections.
Specific Competencies/Criteria for Assessing the Performance Element
Some of the criteria listed for a performance element may not be applicable to a FSIO within a given jurisdiction. In the example above, infrared thermometers may not be part of the standard issued equipment for inspection staff. The FSIO would not, therefore, be responsible for using this type of equipment. If this were the case, the assessor/trainer would mark this criteria not applicable (NA) as depicted in the following illustration.
| 7. Correctly uses inspection equipment during the joint inspections. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used temperature measuring devices/probes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. | ||||
| Cleaned and sanitized (alcohol swabs) temperature measurement probes to prevent food contamination. | ||||
| Used infrared thermometer in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Verified any out of compliance product temperatures registered on the infrared with a thermocouple. |
X |
Conversely, there may be criteria not listed under the performance element that are important for a jurisdiction to include. The Field Training Worksheet has been designed to allow the addition of "OPTIONAL" criteria. For example, a jurisdiction may issue pH test kits to all FSIOs for product assessments during inspections. If this is the case, a jurisdiction may want to include an evaluation of the use of pH test kits in accordance with manufacturer's instructions as part of the Field Training Worksheet as depicted in the following illustration.
| 7. Correctly uses inspection equipment during the joint inspections. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used temperature measuring devices/probes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. | ||||
| Cleaned and sanitized (alcohol swabs) temperature measurement probes to prevent food contamination. | ||||
| Used infrared thermometer in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Verified any out of compliance product temperatures registered on the infrared with a thermocouple. | ||||
| Used maximum registering thermometer or heat sensitive tapes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to verify final rinse dishwasher temperature. | ||||
| Used chemical test strips in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to measure sanitizer concentrations in manual and mechanical dishwashing operations; wiping cloth solutions; and spray bottle applicators. | ||||
| Used flashlight to assess observations in areas with no or low light. | ||||
|
OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): |
||||
|
Comments: |
||||
The level of preparedness and time needed to assimilate knowledge from on-the-job training will vary with each FSIO. The jurisdiction's trainer, or designated staff member, is responsible for determining the number of ATNs that will be performed during the joint field training inspections. A sufficient number of field ATNs must be conducted during trainee-led joint field training inspections to properly assess a FSIO's performance for each of the applicable performance elements and competencies/criteria.
The primary purpose of the ATN is to facilitate a continuous improvement learning experience for the FSIO. The ATN is part of a training process NOT an examination/audit process. The ATN provides a structured, disciplined process for preparing a FSIO to conduct independent retail food and foodservice inspections.
The ideal retail food or foodservice establishment for conducting an ATN is one that will provide an opportunity to observe the greatest number of performance elements and competencies/criteria. The ATNs should be conducted in retail food and foodservice establishments identified in risk categories 2, 3, and 4 as presented in Appendix B-3 (taken from Annex 5, Table 1 of the 2005 FDA Food Code). As a general rule, establishments in risk categories 3 and 4 provide an opportunity to observe a greater number of the performance elements. The majority of the ATNs should be completed in establishments that are representative of the highest risk categories within the jurisdiction or the FSIO's assigned training area.
There is no single "correct" method for conducting an ATN. There are, however, two outcomes that must be achieved regardless of the approach used.
Two approaches that can be used are:
These two approaches are examples only and are not intended to restrict the use of other formats by a jurisdiction. The following summary of strengths-challenges for each approach provides some guidance to regulatory retail food programs on ways to implement the ATN process.
Approach #1: Conducting an ATN during every joint field training inspection
Strengths: This approach provides continual feedback to the FSIO on the performance elements they have mastered and those for which improvement is needed. In the early stages of the joint field inspection process, conducting ATNs can be an important tool in determining whether more demonstration (trainer-led) inspections need to be performed. In later stages of the process, the focus of the training can concentrate on specific performance elements needing improvement.
In addition, this approach will provide important feedback on the jurisdiction's training and orientation program used to prepare FSIOs for their joint field inspections. Performance elements that are consistently not performed well by FSIOs during the joint field training exercises may be an indication of gaps within the jurisdiction's program, coursework requirements, or administrative materials used to prepare staff for field inspections.
Challenges: Using this approach, trainers may focus too much on the assessment, rather than the training, of the FSIO. The ATN process is an integral part of training. It is not an audit or standardization process traditionally used to evaluate a candidate's performance. Continuous instruction is encouraged during each of the field ATNs and trainers should take the opportunity to demonstrate and/or review correct procedures and skills for performance elements that are not understood or properly carried out by the FSIO during each joint field inspection.
Moreover, competing program priorities and limited resources may impede a jurisdiction's ability to conduct an ATN during every joint training inspection. At this stage, it is difficult to determine how much time will be needed for the ATN process since it is a new element of the Program Standards #2 criteria. The ATN Field Training Worksheet has been designed, however, to acknowledge that an opportunity may not exist during every inspection to observe all required performance elements. The "Not Observed" (NO) marking option should be used for performance elements that are part of the FSIO's assigned responsibilities but not observed during the inspection.
Approach #2: Conducting an ATN at set interval points during the joint field training process.
Strengths: A trainer may choose to conduct an ATN at set interval points during the joint field inspection process. For example, if 25 joint field inspections (trainee-led) are planned, an ATN could be conducted during every fifth inspection (i.e., inspections 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25). This process provides set checkpoints to assess continuous improvement for specific performance elements. The joint field training inspections conducted between each ATN can be used to enhance a FSIO's knowledge and skills for performance elements in need of improvement.
Challenges: The interval process may not provide as consistent of an assessment of a FSIO's command of specific performance elements as that obtained by conducting an ATN during each joint inspection. The objective of the ATN is to observe a consistent pattern of acceptable performance from the FSIO on each performance element. Depending on the frequency a performance element is observed, an interval approach could reveal fluctuations in performance. It may be difficult, however, for the trainer to determine whether these fluctuations are isolated occurrences or are more reflective of the FSIO's need to enhance their understanding and skills for the specific performance element.
For either of the above approaches, the trainer should continue to conduct ATNs as part of the joint field training process until the FSIO achieves acceptable performance for all the relevant competencies/criteria within each element.
Some of the performance elements on the Field Training Worksheet frequently occur as part of the inspection process and will provide multiple opportunities for the trainer to assess the FSIO performance during the course of the joint training inspections. These performance elements include verifying that the FSIO:
Some of the performance elements, though they frequently occur during field inspections, will have to be evaluated through the course of the entire joint field training process in order to assess a consistent pattern of performance on the part of the FSIO. Most of the performance elements fall into this category and include verifying that the FSIO:
There are, however, some performance elements that are important FSIO inspection responsibilities but will be difficult to observe as part of the joint field training process. These performance elements include knowledge and skills to perform very specific tasks or are integral to enhancing the effectiveness of the inspection process and include verifying that the FSIO:
If possible, performance elements are to be assessed in the field inspection environment. If this is not feasible, field, laboratory, classroom, or office exercises may be used to assess performance elements that are difficult to observe in the field. Examples of such training exercises may include the:
Each field ATN is just one step in the continuous improvement training process. The Field Training Worksheet provides a framework for identifying a FSIO's strengths and areas for focused training to improve performance.
A FSIO must be evaluated on each of the performance elements that are applicable to the jurisdiction. Under each performance element there is a list of competencies/criteria that a trainer can use to assess the FSIO. As mentioned earlier in this guidance document, the competencies/criteria listed are intended only to serve as examples.
For each of the competencies/criteria, the assessor determines the FSIO's performance using one of four markings as depicted in the following illustration:
| 7. Correctly uses inspection equipment during the joint inspections. |
A |
NI |
NO |
NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used temperature measuring devices/probes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. | ||||
| Cleaned and sanitized (alcohol swabs) temperature measurement probes to prevent food contamination. | ||||
| Used infrared thermometer in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Verified any out of compliance product temperatures registered on the infrared with a thermocouple. | ||||
| Used maximum registering thermometer or heat sensitive tapes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to verify final rinse dishwasher temperature. | ||||
| Used chemical test strips in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to measure sanitizer concentrations in manual and mechanical dishwashing operations; wiping cloth solutions; and spray bottle applicators. | ||||
| Used flashlight to assess observations in areas with no or low light. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
For a FSIO to successfully demonstrate the required competencies/criteria of the performance element being assessed, none of the applicable and observable criteria for that performance element can indicate "Needs Improvement." The assessor/trainer must provide written comments that address any criteria needing improvement.
Criteria marked as "Not Observed" (NO) and/or "Not Applicable" (NA) are not to be included in assessing the FSIO's performance. Only observable criteria are used to assess the FSIO during an ATN.
The Field Training Worksheet is not intended to be used as a "Pass/Fail" evaluation. The ATN is not an examination or audit. It is a structured training approach with defined criteria to prepare a FSIO to conduct independent inspections of retail food and foodservice establishments.
The assessor/trainer should review the results of each completed Field Training Worksheet with the FSIO as soon as possible (ideally after each joint training inspection). The review should include a discussion of both performance elements that were acceptable and those needing improvement. The assessor/trainer should review with the FSIO methods for improving KSAs in performance elements needing improvement. Upon completion of the discussion, both the assessor/trainer and the FSIO sign and date the Field Training Worksheet.
After conducting a minimum of 25 joint field training inspections (or lesser number for an experienced FSIO if authorized by the food program manager/trainer), the trainer will need to make a determination as to whether additional joint field training with the FSIO is needed. A review of all the performance elements is conducted to determine a FSIO's readiness to conduct independent retail food and/or foodservice inspections. The Documentation of Successful Completion form is used to verify that the FSIO has successfully demonstrated the required knowledge, skills and abilities to perform all applicable competencies/criteria.
Purpose of the Documentation of Successful Completion The Field Training Process - Documentation of Successful Completion (DSC) is presented in Attachment B. Since the Assessment of Training Needs is a continuous improvement process, some of the performance elements must be assessed over time. The DSC provides a tool for the assessor/trainer to review the results from all the Field Training Worksheets. It provides verification that the FSIO has achieved an acceptable level of performance in each of the inspection elements.
Descriptions of the Header Information on the Documentation of Successful Completion The DSC contains basic header information that should be verified at the end of the joint field training inspection process.
Date Assessment of Training Needs Began: The date the first Field ATN was conducted.
Date Assessment of Training Needs is Completed: The date the last Field ATN was conducted. Upon completion of the last Field Training Worksheet, the FSIO has demonstrated an acceptable performance for each inspection element.
Print Name - Food Safety Inspection Officer: Print the full name of the FSIO in training.
Signature - Food Safety Inspection Officer: Signature of the FSIO in training indicates acknowledgement of receipt and review of the assessor/trainer's assessment and comments contained in the DSC.
Print Name - Assessor(s): The name of the assessor(s)/trainer(s) responsible for conducting the field ATNs. Some jurisdictions may choose to have all field ATNs performed by a single individual such as a training officer. Other jurisdictions may have multiple individuals conduct the field ATNs. In cases where multiple trainers are used to conduct the ATNs, the names of all trainers should be printed in the header box.
Signature of Assessor: The signature of the assessor should be the food program manager/trainer/or designated staff member who has responsibility for determining when a FSIO is ready to conduct independent retail food and foodservice inspections.
Assessing FSIO Readiness to Conduct Independent Inspections As previously stated, the collective results from all the Field Training Worksheets are used to determine a FSIOs readiness to conduct independent inspections. Demonstration of competence in all applicable performance elements and criteria is needed for a FSIO to successfully complete the ATN process.
Almost all performance elements contain judgments or actions that must be successfully demonstrated by the FSIO. It is to be expected that new hires and employees new to the regulatory retail food program will not be perfect on all criteria that comprise a performance element. The assessor/trainer will need to evaluate the progress of the FSIO, as noted on each of the Field Training Worksheets, over the course of the joint field training inspections.
A score is not used to demonstrate competence of a performance element. Rather an assessment of all the ATNs conducted must indicate a consistent pattern of behavior that demonstrates widespread understanding or skill competency in the performance element. A consistent pattern of behavior would be one where the FSIO almost always meets the criterion that comprises a performance element. There should be only a few, if any, instances where the FSIO did not meet the expected criteria.
Acceptable - indicates that the FSIO meets expectations; or in only a few instances is the performance element not met.
Should the FSIO fail to achieve an "Acceptable" evaluation on one or more of the performance elements, the assessor/trainer will develop a corrective action plan specific to the areas in need of improvement. Corrective action plans may include, but are not limited to:
Once a FSIO achieves an acceptable evaluation on all performance elements they have successfully completed the ATN.
The "Comments" section is designed to be used by the assessor/trainer as a continuous improvement tool. For example, trainers may note a FSIO specific strengths or note items on which inspection knowledge, skills, and abilities, while generally acceptable, can be furthered enhanced.
The DSC is to be reviewed with the FSIO to discuss any items requiring clarification and to share mutual perspectives on the joint field training experience. For the FSIO, the discussion can lay out the next steps in training to prepare for standardization. For the trainer, the discussion can identify strengths and gaps in the jurisdiction's training process.
After the final discussion, both the FSIO and assessor/trainer sign the form. The DSC form should be kept as part of the FSIO's training records.
| Regulatory Jurisdiction's Designated Trainer(Trainer must have successfully completed all Program Standard #2 training and standardization criteria) | Food Safety Inspection Officers(Trainees) |
|---|---|
|
|
| Regulatory Jurisdiction's Designated Trainer(Trainer must have successfully completed all Program Standard #2 training and standardization criteria) | Food Safety Inspection Officers(Trainees) |
|---|---|
|
|
| Regulatory Jurisdiction's Designated Trainer(Trainer must have successfully completed all Program Standard #2 training and standardization criteria) | Food Safety Inspection Officers(Trainees) |
|---|---|
|
|
| Establishment Name: | Permit #: | Date: |
| Establishment Address: | Time In: | Time Out: |
| Food Safety Inspection Officer (FSIO) Name: | FSIO's Agency: | |
| Assessor's Name: | Assessor's Agency: | |
Acceptable (A) FSIO meets performance element criteria
Needs Improvement (NI) FSIO does not meet the criteria expected for the performance element. Written comments must be provided for any criteria marked as needing improvement.
Not Observed (NO) Performance element criterion is part of the FSIO's assigned responsibilities but was not observed during the inspection.
Not Applicable (NA) Performance element criterion is not part of the FSIO's assigned responsibilities
A sufficient number of joint field training inspections must be conducted to assess a FSIO's performance for each of the applicable performance elements (performance elements are in BOLD font in the shaded area of each Table).
Criteria listed under each performance element are intended to serve as examples of observations that can be used to assess a FSIO's performance. Criteria not specific to the FSIO job responsibilities in a jurisdiction are to be marked "Not Applicable" (NA).
The Field Training Worksheet has been designed to accommodate criteria specific to a jurisdiction's retail food protection program. A space has been provided under each performance element for additional or new criteria specific to a jurisdiction. Under each performance element there is a space titled, "OPTIONAL." The "OPTIONAL" area under each performance element can be used by a jurisdiction to add assessment criteria to meet the specific needs of the regulatory retail food protection program.
| 1. Food Safety Inspection Officer (FSIO) has successfully completed pre-requisite training courses as specified in FDA Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards: Standard #2 - Trained Regulatory Staff. | A | NI |
|---|---|---|
| OPTION 1: Completed the FDA ORA-U pre-requisite ("Pre") courses/examinations AND training on the jurisdiction's prevailing statutes, regulations, and/or ordinances. | ||
| OPTION 2: Submitted documentation of completing coursework equivalent to the FDA-ORA pre-requisite ("Pre") curriculum, training on the jurisdiction's prevailing statues, regulations, and/or ordinances, AND | ||
| Has certificate or documentation of successfully passing one of the written examination options in Program Standard #2. | ||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||
| Comments: | ||
| 2. Has required equipment and forms to conduct inspection. | A | NI | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Necessary inspection forms and administrative materials. | |||
| Lab coat or equivalent protection to cover street clothes. | |||
| Head cover: baseball cap; hair net; or equivalent. | |||
| Calibrated thermocouple temperature measuring device. | |||
| Maximum registering thermometer or temperature sensitive tapes for verifying hot water warewashing final rinse temperature. | |||
| Chemical test kits for chlorine, iodophor and quaternary ammonia sanitizers. | |||
| Flashlight. | |||
|
Alcohol swabs. |
|||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | |||
| Comments: | |||
| 3. Reviews establishment file for previous inspection report and, if applicable, any documents or complaints on file. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reviewed previous inspection report noting documented out of compliance observations. |
||||
| Reviewed establishment file for complaint reports. | ||||
| Reviewed establishment file for documentation indicating a need for a HACCP Plan. | ||||
| Reviewed establishment file for documentation of food production or processes operating under a variance issued by the jurisdiction. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 1. Provides identification as a regulatory official to person in charge, confirming agency authority for inspection, and stating the purpose of visit. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verbally provided name and agency to the person in charge. | ||||
| Presented regulatory identification or business card. | ||||
| Stated the purpose of the visit. | ||||
| Requests and confirmed permission to conduct inspection from the person in charge prior to initiating the inspection. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 2. Has knowledge of jurisdiction's laws, rules, and regulations required for conducting retail food/foodservice inspections. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verified the correct critical limit and or standard specified in the jurisdiction's rules/regulations to the observation made. | ||||
| Correctly cited the rule/regulation for each out of compliance observation. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 3. Uses a risk-based inspection methodology to assess regulations related to employee practices and management procedures essential to the safe storage, preparation, and service of food. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verified Demonstration of Knowledge of the person in charge. | ||||
| Verified approved food sources (e.g., food from regulated food processing plants; shellfish documentation; game animal processing; parasite destruction for certain species of fish intended for raw consumption; receiving temperatures). | ||||
| Verified food safety practices for preventing cross-contamination of ready-to-eat food. | ||||
| Verified food contact surfaces are clean and sanitized, protected from contamination from soiled cutting boards, utensils, aprons, etc., or raw animal foods. | ||||
| Verified the restriction or exclusion of ill employees. | ||||
| Verified no bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods (or use of a pre-approved, alternative procedure). | ||||
| Verified employee handwashing. | ||||
| Verified cold holding temperatures of foods requiring time/temperature control for safety (TCS food), or when necessary, verified that procedures are in place to use time alone to control bacterial growth and toxin production. | ||||
| Verified date marking of ready-to-eat TCS food held for more than 24 hours. | ||||
| Verified cooking temperatures to destroy bacteria and parasites. | ||||
| Verified hot holding temperatures of TCS food or when necessary, that procedures were in place to use time alone to prevent the outgrowth of spore-forming bacteria. | ||||
| Verified cooling temperatures of TCS food to prevent the outgrowth of spore-forming or toxin-forming bacteria. |
|
|||
| Verified reheating temperatures of TCS food for hot holding. | ||||
| Verified the availability of a consumer advisory for foods of animal origin served raw or undercooked. | ||||
| Identified food processes and/or procedures that require a HACCP Plan per the jurisdiction's regulations. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 4. Obtains immediate corrective action for out of compliance employee practices and management procedures (listed in Item 3 above) essential to the safe storage, preparation, and service of food. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notified the person in charge/employee(s) of the out of compliance observations. | ||||
| Reviewed corrective actions with the person in charge/employee(s). | ||||
| Observed the person in charge/employee(s) immediately take corrective action for out of compliance observations (e.g., movement of food to ensure product temperature or prevent contamination; reconditioning food; restriction/exclusion of ill employees; discarding of food product) in accordance with local jurisdiction's procedures. | ||||
| Identified conditions requiring issuance of an embargo/stop sale/food destruction order per jurisdiction's administrative procedures. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 5. Correctly assesses compliance status of other regulations (not included in Item 4 - Good Retail Practices) that are included in jurisdiction's prevailing statutes, regulations and/or ordinances. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correctly assessed compliance status of other regulations (not included in Item 4 above - Good Retail Practices) that are included in jurisdiction's prevailing statutes, regulations and/or ordinances. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 6. Verifies correction of out of compliance observations identified during previous inspection. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verified correction of out of compliance observations identified during previous inspection | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 7. Correctly uses inspection equipment during joint inspections. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used temperature measuring devices/probes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. | ||||
| Cleaned and sanitized (alcohol swabs) temperature measurement probes to prevent food contamination. | ||||
| Used infrared thermometer in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Verified any out of compliance product temperatures registered on the infrared with a thermocouple. | ||||
| Used maximum registering thermometer or heat sensitive tapes in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to verify final rinse dishwasher temperature. | ||||
| Used chemical test strips in accordance with manufacturer's instructions to measure sanitizer concentrations in manual and mechanical dishwashing operations; wiping cloth solutions; and spray bottle applicators. | ||||
| Used flashlight to assess observations in areas with no or low light. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 1. Photographs taken support regulatory findings or conditions observed. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photographs taken support regulatory findings or conditions observed. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
|
Comments: |
||||
| 2. Uses an aseptic food sample collection method consistent with criteria established by laboratory serving jurisdiction. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used proper hygiene before and during sample process (e.g., washed hands prior to sampling; did not touch sample container opening, inside lip, inside cap or did not blow into the bag to open it up.) | ||||
| Used sample collection method specified by the jurisdiction (e.g., original container if available; collection of a representative sample from a large quantity or container). | ||||
| Used sterile, leak-proof lidded container or zipper-lock type bags. | ||||
| Used a separate sterile utensil to collect each different sample item. | ||||
| Labeled all containers with required information (e.g., date, time, location, product name, FSIO initials) with corresponding information noted on inspection report or laboratory forms. | ||||
| Initiated written chain of custody including use of evidence seal. | ||||
| Stored and transported sample in a clean, refrigerated unit (e.g., ice chest with ice) within the prescribed time period. | ||||
| Maintained sample refrigerated or frozen until transport or shipping to laboratory. | ||||
| Sample packed and shipped in sterile, leak-proof, insulated container with refrigerant (wet or dry ice) via the most rapid and convenient means available (e.g., courier, bus, express mail). | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 3. Uses an aseptic water sample collection method consistent with criteria established by laboratory serving jurisdiction. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used proper hygiene before and during sample process (e.g., washed hands prior to sampling; did not touch sample container opening, inside lip, inside cap or did not blow into the bag to open it up.) | ||||
| Sample taken at site closest to source of water (prior to any treatment) if possible, or at a site (post treatment) per jurisdiction's procedures. | ||||
| Sample taken from operational fixed type faucet - no swing type or leaking faucets. | ||||
| Removed aerator (if present) from faucet prior to sampling. | ||||
| Disinfected faucet with bleach or flame. | ||||
| Ran water through faucet for several minutes to clear line. | ||||
| Used a sterile, leak-proof lidded container, "whirl-pak" or zipper-lock type bag. | ||||
| Sample taken from midstream of the flowing faucet. | ||||
| Labeled all containers with required information (e.g., date, time, location, product name, FSIO initials) with corresponding information noted on inspection report or laboratory forms. | ||||
| Initiated written chain of custody including use of evidence seal. | ||||
| Stored and transported sample in a clean, refrigerated unit (e.g., ice chest with ice) within the prescribed time period. | ||||
| Maintained sample refrigerated until transport or shipping to the laboratory. | ||||
| Sample packed and shipped in sterile, leak-proof, insulated container with refrigerant via the most rapid and convenient means available (e.g., courier, bus, express mail). | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 1. Asks questions and engages in a dialogue with person in charge/employees to obtain information relevant to inspection. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asked open ended questions (questions that can not be answered with "yes" or "no"). | ||||
| Did not interrupt when the person in charge/employee was speaking. | ||||
| Paraphrased/summarized statements from the person in charge to confirm understanding. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 2. Provides the person in charge/employees with accurate answers to inspection-related questions or admits not knowing the answer. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Answered inspection-related questions accurately. | ||||
| Admitted not knowing the answer to a question and arranges to contact the establishment with the answer. | ||||
| Used trainer as a resource when unsure of an answer. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 3. Uses available means (e.g., interpreter, drawings, demonstrations, diagrams) to overcome language or communication barriers. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avoided using jargon and acronyms, without explanation. | ||||
| Used interpreter, drawings, demonstrations, or diagrams to overcome language or communication barriers. | ||||
| Checked the person in charge's understanding of information/instructions by asking the operator to paraphrase or demonstrate the information/instructions. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 4. Follows jurisdiction's policy in regard to disclosure of confidential information. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained confidentiality laws, policies and procedures to the person in charge when necessary. (If the need to explain confidential laws did not occur during the joint field training inspections, the FSIO explained confidentiality laws, policies and procedures to the trainer). | ||||
| Applied the confidentiality policy per the jurisdictional requirements (e.g., FSIO did not reveal confidential information to the operator during the inspection). | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 5. Uses effective communication and conflict resolution techniques to overcome inspection barriers. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identified challenges faced by the person in charge and offered possible solution(s). | ||||
| Did not become argumentative (e.g., remained calm and focused). | ||||
| Removed himself/herself from a confrontation or threat that may impact personal safety. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 6. Conducts exit interview explaining out of compliance observations and identifying corrective actions and timelines for all noted violations. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained the public health significance of the inspection observations. | ||||
| Reviewed all findings with the person in charge with emphasis on contributing factors to foodborne illness and Food Code Interventions (listed in Section II, Item 3). | ||||
| Used foodborne illness data to highlight contributing factors. | ||||
| Answered all questions or concerns pertaining to items on the inspection report. | ||||
| Provided contact information to the person in charge for follow up questions or additional guidance. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 1. Completes inspection form per jurisdiction's administrative procedures (e.g., observations; corrective actions; public health reason; applicable code reference; compliance dates). | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Used correct inspection form. | ||||
| Completed a legible report. | ||||
| Accurately documented observations made during inspection. | ||||
| Completed inspection form in accordance with jurisdiction's administrative procedures. | ||||
| Cited correct code provisions/rules/regulations. | ||||
| Documented immediate corrective action for out-of-compliance foodborne illness contributing factors and Food Code Interventions (listed in Section II, Item 3). | ||||
| Documented time frames for correcting each out of compliance observation. | ||||
| Signed completed inspection report. |
| 1. Completes inspection form per jurisdiction's administrative procedures (e.g., observations; corrective actions; public health reason; applicable code reference; compliance dates). | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 2. Includes with inspection report any compliance or regulatory documents (e.g., exhibits, attachments, sample forms, embargo forms, destruction forms, suspension notices) identified or cross-referenced in written statements. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Referenced attached documents in inspection report. | ||||
| Referenced documents are legible. | ||||
| Referenced documents are accurate and reflect observations made during the inspection. | ||||
| Attached referenced document(s) to the inspection report per jurisdiction's administrative procedures. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 3. Presents inspection report, and when necessary cross-referenced documents, to person in charge. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presented complete inspection report, with referenced documents when necessary, to person in charge during exit interview. | ||||
| Followed jurisdiction's administrative procedures for delivering written inspection report. | ||||
| Obtained signature of person in charge on inspection report. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
|
Comments: |
||||
| 1. Maintains a professional appearance consistent with jurisdiction's policy (e.g., clean outer clothing, hair restraint). | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maintained a professional appearance consistent with jurisdiction's policy (e.g., clean outer clothing, hair restraint). | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 2. Demonstrates proper sanitary practices as expected from a food service employee. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washed hands as needed (e.g., prior to conducting inspection, after using restroom, after touching dirty surfaces, after touching face/body, after sneezing/coughing). | ||||
| Protected bandages on hands, when necessary, to prevent contamination of food or food contact surfaces. | ||||
| Did NOT contact ready-to-eat foods with bare hands. | ||||
| Did NOT show any obvious signs of illness in accordance with jurisdiction's employee health policy and/or current food code. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
| 3. Only reports substantiated findings as violations. | A | NI | NO | NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only reported findings that were directly observed or substantiated in accordance with jurisdiction's policies and procedures. | ||||
| Findings are supported by fact (e.g., are NOT based on hunch or suspicion; are witnessed, are investigated). | ||||
| Did NOT note violations without visiting the establishment. | ||||
| Did NOT exaggerate details related to findings to support report conclusions. | ||||
| Did NOT modify report after leaving the establishment except as allowed by jurisdiction's administrative procedures. | ||||
| OPTIONAL (Jurisdiction specific items): | ||||
| Comments: | ||||
Assessor Signature:_____________________________________________________________ Date:______________________
FSIO Signature:________________________________________________________________ Date:______________________
| Date Assessment of Training Needs Began: | Date Assessment of Training Needs is Completed: |
| Print Name - Food Safety Inspection Officer (candidate): | Signature - Food Safety Inspection Officer: |
| Print Name - Assessor(s): |
Signature of Assessor: (Signature indicates FSIO has successfully completed the Field Training Process) |
Acceptable (A) FSIO meets expectations; performance element not demonstrated in a few instances
Not Applicable (NA) Performance element not part of the FSIO's assigned responsibilities
| Item | I. Pre-Inspection Performance Elements | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Successfully completed pre-requisite training courses as specified in FDA Voluntary National Retail Food Program Standards: Standard #2 - Trained Regulatory Staff. |
||
|
2 |
Had required equipment and forms to conduct inspection. | ||
|
3 |
Reviewed establishment file for previous inspection report and, if applicable, any documents or complaints on file. | ||
|
Comments |
|||
| Item | II. Inspection Observation and Performance Elements | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Provided identification as a regulatory official to person in charge, confirmed agency authority for inspection, and stated purpose of visit. | ||
|
2 |
Had knowledge of jurisdiction's laws, rules, and regulations required for conducting retail food/foodservice inspections. | ||
|
3 |
Used a risk-based inspection methodology to assess regulations related to employee practices and management procedures essential to the safe storage, preparation and service of food. | ||
|
4 |
Obtained immediate corrective action for employee practices and management procedures (listed in Item 3 above) essential to the safe storage, preparation and service of food. | ||
|
5 |
Correctly assessed compliance status of other regulations (Good Retail Practices). | ||
|
6 |
Verified correction of out of compliance observations identified during previous inspection. | ||
|
7 |
Correctly used inspection equipment during joint inspections. | ||
|
Item |
Comments |
||
| Item | III. Sample Collection and Evidence Development Performance Elements | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Photographs taken support regulatory findings or conditions observed. | ||
|
2 |
Used an aseptic food sample collection method consistent with criteria established by laboratory serving jurisdiction. | ||
|
3 |
Used an aseptic water sample collection method consistent with criteria established by laboratory serving jurisdiction. | ||
|
Item |
Comments |
||
| Item | IV. Oral Communication Performance Elements | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Asked questions and engaged in dialogue with person in charge/employees to obtain information relevant to inspection. | ||
|
2 |
Provided operator with accurate answers to inspection-related questions or admitted he/she did not know the answer. | ||
|
3 |
Used available means (e.g., interpreter, drawings, demonstrations, diagrams) to overcome language or communication barriers. | ||
|
4 |
Followed department policy with regard to disclosure of confidential information. | ||
|
5 |
Used effective communication and conflict resolution techniques to overcome inspection barriers. | ||
|
6 |
Conducted exit interview explaining out of compliance observations and identifying corrective actions and timelines for all noted violations. | ||
|
Item |
Comments |
||
| Item | V. Written Communication Performance Elements | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Completed inspection forms per jurisdiction's administrative procedures (e.g., observations; corrective actions; public health reason; applicable code reference; compliance dates). | ||
|
2 |
Included with inspection report any compliance or regulatory documents (e.g., exhibits, attachments, sample forms, embargo forms; destruction forms; suspension notices) identified or cross-referenced in written statements. | ||
|
3 |
Presented inspection report and when necessary, cross-referenced documents, to person in charge. | ||
|
Item |
Comments |
||
| Item | VI. Professionalism Performance Element | A | NA |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Had a professional appearance consistent with jurisdiction's policy (e.g., clean outer clothing, hair restraint). | ||
|
2 |
Demonstrated proper sanitary practices as expected from a food service employee. | ||
|
3 |
Only reported substantiated findings as violations. | ||
|
Item |
Comments |
||
| RISK CATEGORY | DESCRIPTION | FREQUENCY#/YR |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Examples include most convenience store operations, hot dog carts, and coffee shops. Establishments that serve or sell only pre-packaged, nonpotentially hazardous foods (non time/temperature control for safety (TCS) foods). Establishments that prepare only nonpotentially hazardous foods (nonTCS foods). Establishments that heat only commercially processed, potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods) for hot holding. No cooling of potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods). Establishments that would otherwise be grouped in Category 2 but have shown through historical documentation to have achieved active managerial control of foodborne illness risk factors. |
1 |
|
2 |
Examples may include retail food store operations, schools not serving a highly susceptible population, and quick service operations. Limited menu. Most products are prepared/cooked and served immediately. May involve hot and cold holding of potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods) after preparation or cooking. Complex preparation of potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods) requiring cooking, cooling, and reheating for hot holding is limited to only a few potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods). Establishments that would otherwise be grouped in Category 3 but have shown through historical documentation to have achieved active managerial control of foodborne illness risk factors. Newly permitted establishments that would otherwise be grouped in Category 1 until history of active managerial control of foodborne illness risk factors is achieved and documented. |
2 |
|
3 |
An example is a full service restaurant. Extensive menu and handling of raw ingredients. Complex preparation including cooking, cooling, and reheating for hot holding involves many potentially hazardous foods (TCS foods). Variety of processes require hot and cold holding of potentially hazardous food (TCS food). Establishments that would otherwise be grouped in Category 4 but have shown through historical documentation to have achieved active managerial control of foodborne illness risk factors. Newly permitted establishments that would otherwise be grouped in Category 2 until history of active managerial control of foodborne illness risk factors is achieved and documented. |
3 |
|
4 |
Examples include preschools, hospitals, nursing homes, and establishments conducting processing at retail. Includes establishments serving a highly susceptible population or that conduct specialized processes, e.g., smoking and curing; reduced oxygen packaging for extended shelf-life. |
4 |
It is necessary to maintain a training record of the training status of each retail Food Safety Inspection Officer (FSIO). The following chart may be used as a summary record to demonstrate compliance to Standard No. 2. Other manual or automated summaries may be used as a self-assessment tool as long as the pertinent data elements are present. Certificates, field training records and the other source documents specified as quality records in Standard No. 2 must be maintained in good order by the regulatory authority to support any summary record. These quality records must be available to verify the summary information for purposes of a verification audit.
| Employee Name | Date of hire or reassignment to food program | Training Pre-requisite ("Pre") Curriculum (Prior to conducting independent inspections) | 25 Joint Inspections & successful completionof the Training Needs Assessment(Prior toconducting independent inspections | 25 Independent Inspections & completion of the Program Standard #2 curriculum (18 months)* | Standardization (18 months)* | No. of Education Contact hours/ 3 yrs | Meets criteria Yes/No |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ninety percent (90%) of all employees doing retail food inspections have met the training requirements within the time frames; therefore, we meet Standard No. 2.
__________YES _______NO
___________________________________________________
Name and Signature of Self-Assessor Date
