Score: +1
(3/0/2)
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
Restaurant Inspections – What’s Cooking?
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
EHS policy is to inspect restaurants every nine months, without regard to prior violation history, age or location of building where the restaurant is housed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
a. Develop a risk-based inspection policy that tracks high and low-risk offenders and adjusts their inspection cycle accordingly. b. Initiate an ‘excellence award’ program and consider combining it with a less frequent inspection cycle.
F2
The EHS scoring system used by restaurant Inspectors results in artificially high scores for restaurants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
a. Deduct additional points for a repeat violation of the same standard in a previous report. b. Deduct additional points for multiple violations found on the same type of equipment, such as two refrigerators with unsafe temperatures. c. Revise the point deductions so that the resulting percentage score more accurately reflects the restaurant conditions found.
F3
The first inspection and the first reinspection are included in the annual restaurant inspection fees. EHS can charge for subsequent inspections but rarely does.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
a. Charge for first reinspection and ensure that restaurant owners are aware of the additional costs, in order to motivate compliance and to help support cost recovery. b. Move towards full cost recovery for all types of inspections by increasing fees to cover inspection staff hours.
F4
EHS enforcement policy is minimal and violation deterrents are insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
a. Incorporate all fines allowed by CALCODE into EHS Policies and Procedures. b. Apply the CALCODE authorized fines for violating the Food Safety Certification requirement. c. Charge for all reinspections.
F5
Performance evaluations for Inspectors include a quota for inspections but no credit for reinspections. Reinspections are performed at the discretion of individual Inspectors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
a. Include reinspections in Inspectors’ performance evaluations. b. Establish a policy that states when reinspections are to be performed instead of allowing inspections to be performed at the Inspector’s discretion.
F6
The EHS computer system is not effectively used for statistical reports or for producing useful management documentation due to the complexity of the system and/or the insufficient training of staff. EHS spends $70,000 per year for software vendor maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
a. Provide additional staff training on the EHS computer system. b. Require management to work more actively with the already established ‘user group’ and vendor to achieve more effective operations and functions. c. Provide additional training on the report writer feature to the staff member assigned responsibility for report development. A backup staff member should also be trained in this function. d. Request that a senior County IT employee be assigned to review the capabilities of the system in order for management to be able to determine the value of the system. A determination should be made as to what major changes are needed and what the additional vendor costs will be.
F7
EHS website information concerning restaurant inspections is incomplete. It does not include the full inspection report and is not ‘user-friendly.’ Multi-page inspection report searches are conducted differently, depending on the type of PC used. No user guide or notes are displayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
To improve website access and information: a. Provide easier access to restaurant inspection reports and searches and implement a more “user friendly” website with a consistent search method. b. Include inspector comments on each violation for viewing in the inspection report. c. Include notes of uncorrected violations from previous inspections. d. Make the restaurant complaint form easily accessible and tailor it to food facility complaints.
F8
The public notice stating that a restaurant has been inspected by the EHS is not easily visible in most restaurants and does not include sufficient information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
a. Post notices in an easily seen location, preferably in a front window or at the payment or hostess station. b. Include the score or grade in the notices when a new scoring or rating system is implemented. c. Include an EHS “hotline” telephone number for registering complaints.
F9
Food safety instructions observed in the kitchens were in English, although many Latinos work in restaurant kitchens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
a. Post food safety instruction signs in kitchens in both English and Spanish.
Commendations 2
-
CM1EHS Restaurant Inspectors are efficient, competent and conscientious.
-
CM2The EHS Director, Supervisor and Inspectors were very patient, helpful and accommodating to the many requests of the Grand Jury. 2010-2011 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Page 15
Agency Responses 4
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.