View Report Details

Evaluation of UK food hygiene and safety training

Project Code: B13001

31/03/2005

UK legislation requires that proprietors of food businesses ensure that food handlers engaged in the food business are supervised, instructed and/or trained in food hygiene matters commensurate with their work activity. Through a series of five studies, this project reviews and evaluates the impact of current food hygiene training provision on food safety practices and standards in the UK industry.

STUDY 1: A REVIEW OF FOOD HYGIENE TRAINING STUDIES IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

summarises the methods and results of studies conducted worldwide on the effectiveness of food hygiene training in the commercial sector of the food industry. In particular it focuses on those studies that have tried to evaluate the effectiveness of such training. Forty-six studies of food hygiene training are included which used some outcome measure to assess the effectiveness of training. The short term nature and variety of measures used limited the majority of studies. The need for the development of evaluation criteria of effectiveness of food hygiene training is discussed.

STUDY 2: SURVEYS EXPLORING THE UPTAKE, BARRIERS TO UPTAKE AND NATURE OF UK FOOD HYGIENE TRAINING.

A cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey of UK food businesses (response rate =c.10% = 310 business managers (BMs)) in different sectors of the industry and an on-line questionnaire completed by 140 training providers (TPs). The response rate was lower than that obtained in other recent postal questionnaire studies in the UK food industry. A shorter and less complex questionnaire might have resulted in a higher response rate. The results need to be interpreted with several limitations in mind. The data are from a self-selected population and selfreported thus suffering from well-known weaknesses. Given the relatively small sample size and low response rate, care must be taken in generalising from the results, as they do not necessarily reflect the views held across the UK food industry. The survey found:

Training recommended, delivered and typically received: Generally larger companies trained staff to a higher level, and level of training increased with level of responsibility. Level 1 Food Hygiene courses were most frequently delivered. Most training was provided locally. Most BMs and TPs recommended scheduling training during working hours, or during and outside working hours.

Hazard analysis/HACCP systems: Eight in ten of the responding BMs, particularly in larger businesses, reported having documented procedures and identifying all CCPs. The level of HACCP training increased with level of responsibility, and also the proportion receiving training was linked to level of responsibility. Smaller businesses were more likely to not undertake such training. Almost all TPs recommended that those dealing with high-risk foods have documented procedures, and identify and monitor all CCPs.

Training courses or materials: Just under half of BMs reported that their organisations had developed training courses or materials, most often for the basic level food hygiene courses, withthose in manufacturing or in larger businesses reporting this most frequently. Just over half of the TPs' organisations had developed their own courses or materials, most frequently for induction level courses.

Internal training (using in-house personnel to train others): BMs felt that the best reasons for internal training were because it is effective in improving work practices; staff can be trained ‘as and when’ needed; it is effective in improving knowledge; and it can be tailored to meet specific needs or processes. TPs felt that the best reasons for internal training were because it can be tailored to meet specific needs or processes; staff can be trained ‘as and when’; it is locally available; and legal obligations can be met.

External training (using outside training companies or consultants): BMs felt that the best reasons for external training were because it results in a nationally recognised qualification, is always up to date with current legislation, is effective in improving knowledge, and is effective in improving work practices. TPs felt that the best reasons for external training were because it results in a nationally recognised qualification and legal obligations can be met.

Views on policies and practices with regard to training: Over 80% of BMs reported having a training policy, of these 72% reported a written training policy. Larger businesses were more likely to have policies in place. BMs' most frequent source of advice on training was EHOs. TPs confirmed this. Just under two-thirds of BMs reported re-training some personnel, 13% did not re-train. Larger businesses reported retraining and revising training needs more frequently. The method of encouragement to employ new skills and knowledge reported most frequently was “being given increased responsibility”. This was also most often recommended by TPs.

Barriers to the provision of training: The main barrier to was increased business costs and the least important was that it loses much working time. The retailing sector and TMs agreed more strongly that training is hindered by high turnover of personnel, and, ethnic businesses that there are
difficult language and literacy issues.

Benefits of providing training: BMs felt most important the benefit was that it protects customers and ensures food produced is safe, whilst TPs felt it was to meet legal obligations. BMs and TPs felt that training has a positive effect on levels of food safety and business performance.

The perceived impact of training: BMs and TPs felt the benefits of training are mainly apparent in the short term. BMs felt that safety standards are most improved through on-the-job training, and least by self-instruction. TPs felt that safety standards are most improved through sector specific training, a combination of methods, accredited courses, and on-the-job training. BMs and TPs felt it is easiest to retain and apply knowledge and skills gained from on-the-job training.

Monitoring the impact of training: Visual monitoring was businesses' most frequently used method and bacteriological tests the least used method. This was confirmed by TPs.

Monitoring the cost of training: BMs perceived the costs of the course and/or exam fees to be the most frequently monitored cost associated with training. TPs confirmed this.

STUDY 3: A TRAINING MATERIAL DATABASE
containing 191 records, most of which are training packs and posters or visuals, was produced. All materials in the database are available in English. Where materials are available in other languages (most likely to be available for pamphlets and handbooks), this was most commonly Bengali, Chinese, Greek, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. Most materials are recommended for use in Level 1 training courses. Where materials are described to be for particular audiences, this was most likely to be trainers.

STUDY 4: A TRAINING COURSE DATABASE
containing 1815 records from 297 training providers, was produced. Most TPs provide two courses. Most of the training courses are Basic level courses, followed by Intermediate level courses. More courses are offered as "in-house" training courses than as "open" training courses. Most courses are certified by the Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health, followed by the Royal Institute of Public Health. Most courses are offered on demand. Only 72 of the courses are offered in languages other than English. The language other than English in which courses are most frequently offered is Urdu followed by Punjabi, Bengali and Turkish. Only eight courses are offered as being for people with special needs. Sixteen courses are offered as being sector-specific (e.g. care) and 125 as bespoke courses.

STUDY 5: THE IMPACT OF TRAINING
on employees (working with sandwiches, salad bars and delicatessen counters) who received Foundation level Food Hygiene training by the end of November 2003, and their colleagues who have either received formal training in the past and/or on-the-job training. Thirty-nine food premises were used in this study. Data was collected from 104 trainees pretraining and 71 trainees post training. Data was also collected from a control group of colleagues receiving no training, 45 pre-training and 32-post training; as well as 32 managers and 15 supervisors. Levels of food hygiene knowledge were tested pre and post training using 20-item knowledge test developed as part of this project. Food premises were inspected to establish general food hygiene standards.
Prior to training the number of participants with a pass score (i.e. 60% or more correct) was significantly higher in the control group. Sixty one percent of the control group passed the knowledge test and only 36% of those yet to undergo training. Compared to the control group, trainees had significantly lower total scores for their knowledge of food hygiene and temperature control knowledge sub-scores prior to training. Fifty nine percent of the trainees passed the knowledge test after receiving training. Compared to prior to training, trainees had significantly higher total scores for their knowledge of food hygiene and all sub-scores after training. After training trainees knowledge scores (59% passed) did not differ from the control group (58% passed). Trainees significantly increased their total knowledge score and their sub-scores for three of the four sub-scores (i.e. causes of food
poisoning and food-borne disease; prevention of food poisoning; temperature control) after training.After training, trainee's knowledge significantly increased for two of the three questions on the causes of food poisoning and food-borne disease. As this was the area where knowledge was most weak, this is an important change. The study has provided limited evidence as to the effectiveness of food hygiene training in changing actual behaviour. Both trainees and their supervisors report changes in behaviour as result of food hygiene training, with those with a pass score reporting awareness of temperatures significantly more frequently than those with a fail score. Better measures of behaviour
are needed to determine whether or not behaviour change has occurred.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO TRAINING PROVISION

1.1: The distinction between accredited and non-accredited; and certified and non-certified training needed to be communicated clearly to the industry. The benefits of accredited and certified training should be clear to all those responsible for purchasing training.

1.2: The level of training received should reflect the level of responsibility held and should increase in line with increasing levels of responsibility.

1.3: Courses preparing trainees for the CIEH Level 1 Food hygiene certificate are most often delivered; changes made to this certificate will have the greatest impact.

1.4: Food Safety and hygiene should be clearly incorporated in induction training across all sectors and business sizes, and should not be postponed until inclusion in later training.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HAZARD ANALYSIS/HACCP SYSTEMS

2.1: As of January 2006 all food businesses will be required to have HACCP. Incentives, support and encouragement need to be provided to ensure that those working in smaller businesses will be more likely to engage in HACCP training, have documented HACCP, to identify all CCPs or to monitor CCPs.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHERE AND WHEN TO PROVIDE TRAINING

3.1: Food safety and hygiene should be clearly incorporated in induction training across all sectorsand sizes of businesses and should not be postponed until later training.

3.2: Internal training is regarded as benefiting from flexibility of timing and relevance of course content. There is a need to clearly establish whether such training is linked to a real improvement in retention of knowledge and skills and improved working practices.

3.3: External training is regarded as the most up to date with legislation and cost-effective means of providing training to those working in smaller businesses. This type of training needs to be tailored to the specific needs of all businesses and is accessible in terms of pricing, timing and location. Training should preferably be scheduled in working hours.

3.4: The potential for combining and better linking internal and external training as an effective form of training delivery needs to be investigated.

3.5: Where possible courses need to be tailored to meet business–specific needs, resulting in a more diverse but focussed range of courses being offered. Training providers may need to gain more sector-specific experience. Given the perceived importance of qualifications, sector-specific qualifications could be considered.

3.6: The effectiveness of refresher training in terms of knowledge and behaviour needs to be determined and then guidelines need to be developed on frequency with which refresher training should be received. It is likely that these courses will be sector and role specific.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO BARRIERS TO THE PROVISION OF TRAINING

4.1: Incentives, support and encouragement need to be provided to ensure that those working in smaller and medium businesses will be more likely to train to a higher level i.e. similar to that which is achieved by those working in larger businesses.

4.2: Incentives, support and encouragement need to be provided to ensure that the industry help those working in the industry with specialized language and literacy needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO TRAINING POLICIES AND PRACTICES

5.1 Food hygiene training programmes need to be implemented in all food businesses. The level to and way in which staff will be trained needs to be documented for every post. Industry sectors need top support this process by drawing up standards for posts commonly held.

5.2: Smaller businesses lag behind larger organisations in terms of developing effective training strategies. They require convincing of the benefits of training and help in formulating their needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE IMPACT OF TRAINING

6.1: The perception is that the effectiveness of training is limited to mainly short-term effects. There is also a need to clarify why these perceptions exist. More evidence is needed to establish whether, and if so to what extent, medium and long-term effects exist. The extent to which retraining or top up courses can lengthen durability of knowledge and skills needs further investigation.

6.2: Businesses and training providers recognise benefits to training, including to business performance. Clear, tangible benefits of training need to be evidence-based so that they can then be usefully communicated to encourage uptake of training. Businesses also need to be given guidance as how to best monitor the effectiveness of training and other food hygiene procedures.

6.3: Self-instruction (computer-based) is considered less effective than other forms of training. It is necessary to establish if and why this is or is not true.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO TRAINING INFORMATION SOURCES

7.1: As well as providing training, EHOs form an important source of information and guidance, especially for smaller businesses, and need to be sufficiently supported in this role.

7.2: Prior to implementation, evidence of effectiveness must be obtained for all methods/formats and materials to be used in training programmes.

Main File

Some of the files on this site may be in a format that your computer can't read. However, you can download Readers and Viewers for the following document types below: