March 18, 2010

To: Jonathan Sher, The London Free Press

From: Jim Reffle, Director, Environmental Health and Chronic Disease

Prevention Services

Re: Food Premises Inspection Questions

Background

You provided us with a series of questions regarding past food premise

inspection
practices concerning a number of establishments which had been
closed. I have
had the opportunity to review these files and the answers to your
questions are
provided below.

It is important to note that 1,436 inspections of restaurants were

conducted in
2009. Each inspection involved the review of 46 items of which 20 are
classified as
critical. Therefore the total number of critical observations for 2009
was
approximately 28,700 of which 1,019 critical infractions were
identified. This
represents a critical infraction rate of 3.5 percent.

Questions from The London Free Press

Restaurant #1

In regard to the questions about Restaurant #1, I have had a chance to

review the information in greater detail since I last responded to you
on March 4th. The risk assessment that had been done for this food
premise incorrectly determined that this was a Medium Risk
establishment. This was a mistake. It should have been assessed as
High Risk, thereby subject to 3 routine compliance inspections per
year.
Steps have been taken to rectify this and the Risk Assessment and
number of
required inspections have been brought into expected requirements.

As a result, some of the supplemental questions asking about the risk

assessment
of this food premise as Medium Risk are not relevant. However, the
other related
questions are noted below with my responses:

David White and the Toronto Public Health both say that most
full service
restaurants are classified as high-risk. Is that correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

In 2007 there were 14 violations found by inspectors at

Restaurant #1,
including 4 critical violations. How did that compare to the
average at
London full-service restaurants?

This appears to be higher than average for 2007.

Did the person who classified Restaurant #1 as medium risk

know that sushi
has been found to be the cause of food-borne illness by public
health
officials in a number of countries prior to 2008?

Yes. This kind of information is part of the PHI curriculum, part of their
academic
training and professional development.

Mr. White said inspection work was diverted for H1N1 in direct
response to
my question about why an inspection wasn’t done in March,
2009.

Is it correct that you are saying that no work was diverted

then and that
the diversion only came from late-October to early-December?
That’s correct. With the redeployment of all health unit staff to provide
a range of
duties to support the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic community response,
many public
health inspection resources were not available for inspection work from
late
October until at least the middle of December. So there was an
opportunity for this
premise to have received a second inspection in the second half of
2009.

Restaurant #2

Having investigated this further, the pest control problems observed at

Restaurant #2, London were not handled correctly. Steps have been
taken to address the issues and the situation has been reviewed with
the staff involved.

Although inspectors use their judgment to decide when a problem

constitutes a
health hazard, there appears to have been an ongoing rodent problem
at this
food premises. A closure order should have been issued before the
actual closure
order was given.

Expectations relating to the required actions to take continue to be

reinforced with
all inspection staff, in order to ensure that if an inspector has identified
a pest
problem within a food premise where it can affect the sanitary
operation of the
premise or the wholesomeness of food, the premise will be ordered
closed. The
owner/operator of the food premise shall also be required to obtain the
services of
a licensed pest control operator. A pest infestation constitutes a health
hazard
under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Ontario Food
Premises
Regulation.

Restaurant #2: Closed March 26, 2007 by health inspector.

Inspected
again June 16, 2008 and inspector Blair finds 7 violations,
including four
critical, and says there will be a re-inspection June 30. There’s
no record of a
re-inspection June 30. The next inspection is Oct 23, 2008 and
10 violations
are found, requiring a re-inspection. Restaurant #2 is later
closed again in 2009.

It is correct that a re-inspection was not conducted on June 30, 2008.

However, in
2008, there were 3 inspections and 2 re-inspections conducted at this
premise. As
at Dec. 11, 2008, no infractions were noted.

Restaurant #3

From August of 2007 to January of 2009, Restaurant #3 was

inspected once, in Aug 2008. It appears there was only one
compliance inspection each in 2007 and 2008 when two were
required each year. Why? wasn’t it inspected twice each year?
Might the lack of required inspections contributed to violations
in 2009 that led to closure?

In 2007, two routine inspections were carried out as well as one re-
inspection. In
2008, only one inspection was completed. The assumption cannot be
made that a
missed inspection in 2008 led to the findings in late 2009.
Observations noted in
2007 and 2008 did not indicate a pest control problem.

The inspector closed it down the first time there was evidence
of a rodent
infestation and ordered pest control. By contrast, at
Restaurant #2, it took four
months of rodent infestation before it was closed and pest
control ordered.
The only difference between the two that I can see is that
Restaurant #2 had
many more violations than did Restaurant #3 in the
inspections prior to
rodent droppings being found. Why was Restaurant #3 closed
right away
but Restaurant #2 was not?
The Restaurant #3 is an example of proper protocol given the
situation. As noted above in the section addressing Restaurant #2
question, the proper protocol had not been followed.

Restaurant #4

On July 2, 2008 an inspector found three critical violations at

Restaurant #4, which was classified medium risk. But the next
inspection wasn’t done for another 14 months, which means it
wasn’t inspected the required two times in 2008.

Why wasn’t it inspected twice in 2008?

In reviewing the records, it should have been. Our records indicate this
premise
was not inspected for 14 months, as you noted. They also reflect the
fact that when
the PHI did inspect the premise, the necessary action was taken, and
the premise
was ordered closed.

It appears the July 2, 2008 report was amended on January 23,

2009 and
the restaurant was assigned an inspection date of Jan. 2, 2009
--- which was
three weeks before the amendment as made. Why assign an
inspection date
that was already past?

This was a computer system issue. There are times when information
on an
inspection report in the computer system needs to be reopened and
corrections
made. The date the report is reopened to do this work, gets included
on the
printout, even though the actual dates of inspection/re-inspection are
different.
There are times when we had issues with the field equipment and the
PHI had to
issue a paper based report of inspection and have the details entered
into our
system at a later date.
When the place was inspected after 14 months, on Sept. 11,
2009 the
inspector found numerous violations and closed it down. The
inspector also
noted that staff there had just completed the MLHU’s food
handler training
course. * Is it a concern that a restaurant whose employees
just completed
your course had so many critical violations that the place was
shut down?

The inspection results are disappointing, particularly after it was

indicated that
employees completed the Food Handler Training course. When owners
and food
staff who are left in charge of the operation and have authority and
decision
making powers and have the necessary information from these
courses, they
should be in a better position to apply this knowledge in their
operations.

Do you track the difference in inspection results between food

premises
whose employees have taken your course versus those who
have not, by the
number of critical violations, closures, fines or some other
measure? If you
don’t track this, why not? How do you know the course is
helping?

No. We are currently investigating ways to do this.

The Sept. 11 inspection says the place is classified as high

risk; when
exactly was the classification change elevated from medium to
high < it
> appears it would have been at the start of 2009 < is that
correct?

The Risk Assessment for this premise was changed to High from
Medium in June
2009.

Restaurant #5
An inspector closed Restaurant #5 on March 24, 2009; there is
only one inspection report from 2008 and none from 2007 that
you have provided me. Were there no inspections in 2007 and
only one in 2008?

That is correct.

After the failed inspection in March 2009 and a re-inspection

that month,
there are no inspection reports since. Why wasn’t it inspected
a second
time as required of a medium-risk food premise, especially
when the first
inspection led to its closure? It’s been nearly a year since it’s
last
inspection.

A second routine compliance inspection should have been conducted

in the latter
half of 2009. There was ample opportunity to do this.

A Food Premise Closure and Follow-up Inspection Protocol has been

developed to
ensure that inspections at premises that have been ordered closed will
be followed
up on a more frequent basis after a closure order has been rescinded.

In Summary

• We acknowledge that for the five food premises you have

identified,
inspection procedures were not fully implemented.

• We have spoken directly with the inspectors involved and are

holding an all
PHI Team meeting.

• We have developed a Food Premises Closure and Follow-Up

Inspection
Protocol.

• We are investigating the capability of our food inspection

computer system
to assist us in the follow-up of closed premises.

• We are investigating the capability of our food inspection

computer system
to track inspection results for those premises with staff who have
completed
the Food Handler Training program versus those premises where
staff have
not.

• We will revise the Food Inspection Disclosure Website launched

February
18, 2010, to include the colour coded inspection results (ie. green,
yellow,
red) once the required by-law changes are made by City Council.