Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/320009
Type: Artigo de Periódico
Title: Should Weights And Risk Categories Be Used For Inspection Scores To Evaluate Food Safety In Restaurants?
Author: da Cunha
DT; de Rosso
VV; Stedefeldt
E
Abstract: The objective of this study was to verify the characteristics of food safety inspections, considering risk categories and binary scores. A cross-sectional study was performed with 439 restaurants in 43 Brazilian cities. A food safety checklist with 177 items was applied to the food service establishments. These items were classified into four groups (R1 to R4) according to the main factors that can cause outbreaks involving food: R1, time and temperature aspects; R2, direct contamination; R3, water conditions and raw material; and R4, indirect contamination (i.e., structures and buildings). A score adjusted for 100 was calculated for the overall violation score and the violation score for each risk category. The average violation score (standard deviation) was 18.9% (16.0), with an amplitude of 0.0 to 76.7%. Restaurants with a low overall violation score (approximately 20%) presented a high number of violations from the R1 and R2 groups, representing the most risky violations. Practical solutions to minimize this evaluation bias were discussed. Food safety evaluation should use weighted scores and be risk-based. However, some precautions must be taken by researchers, health inspectors, and health surveillance departments to develop an adequate and reliable instrument.
Subject: Checklist
Food Safety
Inspection
Risk
Editor: INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
Rights: fechado
Identifier DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-292
Address: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2016/00000079/00000003/art00020
Date Issue: 2016
Appears in Collections:Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.