Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Restaurant Ranking Pro/Con David F. Ludwig, M.P.H., R.S. Maricopa County Environmental Health.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Restaurant Ranking Pro/Con David F. Ludwig, M.P.H., R.S. Maricopa County Environmental Health."— Presentation transcript:

1 Restaurant Ranking Pro/Con David F. Ludwig, M.P.H., R.S. Maricopa County Environmental Health

2 What does the Public Want ? Easy Access to Information regarding the Sanitation of the Food Facility? How? –Grade Card or Award in the Front window –Internet Access to Health Inspections –Number of Critical Violations –Posted Previous Inspection

3 Let’s Look at Some Web Sites

4 Simple and Straight Forward

5 Static Violation List

6 Facility Posted Grade Cards

7 See the “A” Card

8 How does the Public define “Significant”? “Significant”?

9

10 Inspector’s Observational Comments

11 Challenge Not Every Food Service Regulatory uses the Same Set of Violations

12

13 Inspector’s Observational Comments

14

15 State Based Evaluation Rating System Note that to have a “Good” Rating an Establishment is Required to Correct all Critical Violations While the Inspector is On Site

16 Needs Improvement Sorting is done by Month and Rating Type and Rating Type

17 Violation Definitions Static Indication if Violation was Corrected during Inspection Corrected during Inspection

18 Challenge Not Every Food Service Regulatory uses the Same Scoring System

19

20 Green Placard ("Pass"): Green Placard ("Pass"):Green PlacardGreen Placard A high level of compliance achieved. Yellow PlacardYellow Placard ("Conditional Pass"): Yellow Placard Violations observed that required immediate correction and a follow-up inspection. Red PlacardRed Placard ("Closed"): Red Placard Closure is required when an immediate danger to public health or safety is observed. What do they mean?

21

22 Public Sees the Actual Inspection

23 So What Works? Where’s the Proof

24

25 Interactive and Able to Sort

26 What Violations can Occur and still be an “A”

27 Do Grade Cards Make Inspectors More Lenient? Pressure between scoring a 89 vs. 90 LA average score in below income area before Grade Cards - 74.5 Average score in above the median – 78.8 One year after Grade Cards – below income – 89.8 Above median – 89.5

28 “A” Card = 88.75 % What are the Percentages Today after 7 Years

29 “B” Card = 10.51 % What are the Percentages Today after 7 Years

30 “C” Card = 0.69 % What are the Percentages Today after 7 Years

31 “D” Card = 0.004 % What are the Percentages Today after 7 Years

32 Pure Economics “A” Card increases Revenue by 5.7% compared to Not having a card“A” Card increases Revenue by 5.7% compared to Not having a card “B” Card increases Revenue by 0.7% compared to Not having a card“B” Card increases Revenue by 0.7% compared to Not having a card “C” Card decreases Revenue by 1%“C” Card decreases Revenue by 1% Zin & Leslie Choices ‘05

33 Since Instituting Grade Cards in 1998 13.1% Reduction in Foodborne Illness HospitalizationsReported

34 Gold - Top 25% Silver - Middle 50%

35 Based on CDC Identified Risk Factors for Foodborne Illness Time/Temperature Hands as a vehicle of contamination Good Hygienic Practices Approved Sources Protection from Contamination

36 Extra Weight has been added 20 Points –1A – Raw animal foods cooked to min. Temp. –4A – Foods cooled in appropriate time –12A – Persons with discharges –13A – Bare Hand Contact –26C – ROP 15 Points –2A – Hot Holding –5A – Cold Holding –16A – Food Receiving –16B – Shell Egg Receiving –16C – Fluid Eggs that are not pasteurized

37 . Cooking Cooling IllWorker Bare Hand Contact ROP

38

39 Extra Weight 10 Points –3A – Reheating –6A – Hands washed when necessary –8A – Hand washing procedures –15A – Foods from Approved Sources/Safe –15C – Raw Fish treated for parasite –15E – Unsafe food not properly discarded –15H – Bottled water not from approved source –17A – Shellfish tags not present –18A – Food protected from cross contamination –19A – Re-Service of food –19C – Food contacting unsanitized surfaces –20A – Cleaned frequently –20B – Not clean to sight and touch –22B – Date marked food not disposed of –25A – Time as a control

40 Values Values 5 Points –Other Criticals 3 Points –PE1 – Washing hands in wrong sink –H1 – Hand sanitizer not approved –H2 – Handsink not accessible –H4 – No soap –H5 – No towels –H6 – Handwashing supplies at mop sink –S3 – Freezing records for fish not kept –F1 – Fruits/Vegetables not washed –W4 – Water used as san. Out of temp range – mech. warewashing –W22 – Improper water pressure – mech. warewashing –W23 – Improper use of detergent-sanitizer –C5 – Non-critical cleaning of food-contact 1 point –Other non-criticals

41

42 Gold - 36% Silver - 47% No Award - 17% Training - <1%

43

44 Gold - 34% Silver - 48% No Award - 18% Training - <1%

45

46 Gold - 36% Silver - 47% No Award - 17% Training - 1%

47 46% Reduction in Major Violations

48 What Are Your Thoughts on Food Service Public Notifications?

49 Questions ?

50 ftp://ftp.maricopa.gov /Get.From.Maricopa/ Normal.Downloads/ ftp://ftp.maricopa.gov /Get.From.Maricopa/ Normal.Downloads/Environmental_Services/


Download ppt "Restaurant Ranking Pro/Con David F. Ludwig, M.P.H., R.S. Maricopa County Environmental Health."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google