Oregon agency whittles down food inspection backlog
In response to a November 2016 Secretary of State audit of the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Program, the backlog of inspections of food establishments has been reduced to just 23 percent of what it was at the time of the audit, the agency said Thursday.
Several other improvements have been made based on the audit report’s recommendations, including with data tracking and analysis. As a result, an already sound system for ensuring safe food in Oregon is even stronger.
“We believe the audit recommendations have been tremendously helpful to the program,” wrote ODA Director Alexis Taylor in a one-year progress report in response to the Oregon Secretary of State’s Audit Division.
“As a result of the audit recommendations, the program has improved tracking and oversight of its inspection backlog, and has developed and deployed an electronic inspector time tracking system. The program has also reduced its federal work to free up both managers and staff to spend more time in the field on routine inspections.”
In October 2016, the audit found that 2,841 food businesses licensed by ODA were late for inspection- defined as being three or more months overdue. Currently, that backlog has been reduced to 644 firms. The reduction in the backlog was a combination of better data on the firms to be inspected along with a refocused effort to work through the list.
“While analyzing the data, we realized that some businesses were incorrectly categorized in our database,” says Stephanie Page, director of ODA’s Food Safety and Animal Health programs. “Many of them were low-risk firms and we had them set up on a schedule that was appropriate for high-risk firms.”
High-risk firms are on a shorter schedule and are typically inspected every six months to one year. Low risk firms are inspected typically every 24 to 36 months. Several factors, including extent and type of onsite food preparation or processing, types of foods offered for sale, volume and distribution, and the population served go into calculating a firm’s risk profile. Correcting several firms’ inspection schedules to match their risk profiles whittled down the backlog significantly.
“Our staff correct those inspection intervals based on the risk profile of the firm,” says Page. “That cleared out about half of the overdue firms. The rest of the backlog reduction is simply through pounding the pavement and completing the inspections. Clearing the list helped our staff better see what firms are overdue. They now feel less overwhelmed and can better prioritize what needs to be inspected.”
ODA currently has 37 food safety inspectors and four managers or supervisors to routinely inspect more than 12,000 licensed facilities that include retail stores, food processors, dairies, and other food businesses- in fact, everything except restaurants, which are inspected by public health departments. It’s a daunting, but important task for a staff that often has more than a full plate of work.
“We weren’t compromising food safety because of the lack of timeliness on inspections,” says Page. “We have always prioritized high-risk firms. Consumers can remain confident that their food has been safe and will continue to be safe. They may see us more in some of the stores, since we are catching up on the backlog.”
A key recommendation from the audit was to develop a process to better track the backlog of food safety inspections. In response, ODA established a monthly schedule for inspectors to generate backlog reports, training on how to view them, and develop a quarterly schedule for management to review the data.
ODA also developed guidelines and monthly summaries that track how inspectors’ time has been spent, which are shared with the staff along with recommendations on what would be considered inspection vs. consultation time.
“We have worked to clarify for our inspectors the ways they can assist their firms,” says Page. “For example, it’s okay to review a food manufacturer’s product label to make sure it meets regulations. But it’s not okay to spend time filing the firm’s FDA registration or write a food risk mitigation plan for them. There are things our staff can do for the firms and things that the firms need to do for themselves.”
Saving some time during an inspector’s visit to a firm helps free up valuable minutes and hours for actual food safety inspections. Even so, education of food establishments remains a priority for ODA.
“We believe making sure food establishment employees are doing things correctly- and, in some cases, showing them the right way to do it- is the best way to ensure public health for the other days of the year when we are not there inspecting,” says Page.
In response to the audit, food safety managers are spending more time in the field with staff and tracking their time. The increased oversight will help ensure inspections are being completed on time.
Taking some work off the plate of the inspector is also helping. The US Food and Drug Administration contracts with states to conduct federal inspections of FDA-licensed firms. ODA has reduced the annual number of contract inspections by ODA staff from 500 to 400, thus freeing up even more time for state inspections.
ODA has fully implemented or resolved six of the Secretary of State’s recommendations based on the 2016 audit. Other recommendations are in varying stages of implementation. All of them are geared to achieve the same goal- strengthening the Food Safety Program.
“The audit has made us a better management team,” says Page. “Our inspectors should feel good about the reduced backlog because of the yeoman’s work they’ve done catching up on overdue inspections while balancing all of their other responsibilities.”
ODA was aware of many of the audit’s concerns prior to it being completed, but appreciated the solutions offered in the final recommendations.
“We took the audit as constructive criticism,” says Page. “When we are inspecting firms, we, too, deliver constructive criticism that we expect them to abide by. So this is a chance for us to practice what we preach.”
