Factors that affect what is written down on a retail food establishment inspection report

Abby Cronau Johnson, Purdue University

Abstract

This study examined the factors that affect what is written down on a retail food establishment report, from the perspective of the health inspectors in the state of Indiana. An internet-based survey was created and distributed to approximately 200 county and state health inspectors throughout Indiana. The purpose of the survey was to help determine how different factors impact the inspector's likelihood of writing down violations on inspection reports. The factors included the inspector's perceived purpose for inspections, type of violation (critical or non-critical), the perceived food safety risk associated with the violation, the establishment's inspection history, the perceived impact the inspection report will have on the establishment, the behavior of the manager, the inspector's perception of the manager, the inspector's professional relationship with the manager, the health inspection report summarization method, and demographic characteristics of the individual inspector (including age, gender, education, inspection experience, and amount of continuing education/training received in the last five years). In order to test research hypotheses, the one-sample t-test and general linear models were employed. The results indicate that several factors had a statistically significant impact on the likelihood of writing down the violations given in the scenarios. Inspectors were more likely to write down the violation if the violation was critical, if the establishment presented a greater risk to food safety based on their inspection history, if the manager is uncooperative or seems unwilling to make necessary changes, if the manager appears to have inadequate food safety knowledge, if the manager appears to be young and inexperienced or if the manager appears to have many years of experience. Inspectors were less likely to write down the violation if the violation was non-critical, if the establishment had a good inspection history, if the manager shows cooperation and willingness to make suggested changes (only applied to non-critical violations), if the violation is corrected immediately (critical and non-critical violations), if the inspector has known the manager for many years and has inspected the establishment many times or knows the manager outside the establishment (slightly less likely) and if the manager accompanies them during the inspection. Therefore, this study contributes to a better understanding of health inspectors' actions and how they decide what to write down on the inspection report. It also demonstrates that health inspectors as a group are very interested in food safety education and not just enforcement of the food code. This information may also be useful in the training of health inspectors. Additional research should be done to explore how food safety education and reporting of health inspection results impact the overall number of reported cases of foodborne illness.

Degree

M.S.

Advisors

Nelson, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Ethics|Public health|Recreation

COinS