by Situations drive operator choices
“Over here, Ray debones raw chicken. Later in the shift, he works at the counter.”
Handwash protocols in foodservice are dictated by the situation. Situations are defined and grouped by the operator and training begins.
This sequence hardly ever happens. Why? It credits the operator with caring, knowing the risks of their individual process and making the right choice. Meanwhile, when the health inspector arrives, all hand washes outside the Model Food Code carry with them the risk of a citation. The inspector looks at the handwashing as inspection-based, keeping all hand washes the same while the operator focuses on risk and takes behavioral factors into consideration. So, to which standard should we train our employees?
The Code also ignores the cumulative effect of applying a double-intervention protocol like using a nailbrush or following the wash with a hand sanitizer.
The bottom quartile of operators, those with less respect for food safety, consume over half of the inspector’s time. The issues within this group are now the drivers of The Model Food Code. The Code becomes a disincentive for innovation and a handicap for the industry’s food safety leaders.
The better operators look to achieve standards in the most efficient way. For higher standards in hand hygiene, they may be cited for non-food code approved protocols.
The Code refuses to define what a hand wash is and what a clean hand is. Until that happens, we will have just one approved, inspection-based method while the Code fades further into irrelevancy by expecting 8.6 hand washes per employee hour. http://www.handwashingforlife.com/blog/jim-mann/norovirus-focused-handwashing-restaurants-part-one
