Critical food safety violations in Surrey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Foodborne illness affects 4 million (1 in 8) Canadians each year, with at least 50% of these illnesses linked to restaurants. Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) conduct routine, demand, and follow-up restaurant inspections to safeguard the public. Critical violations (CVs) must be corrected during inspection because they have a high probability of causing a foodborne illness. Examples of CVs include: previously served food not being discarded, and infrequent handwashing from employees. Previous research has shown that individuals of low socioeconomic status are more susceptible to foodborne illness. According to Statistics Canada, the poverty rate in Surrey, British Columbia, is 14.8%, which is slightly higher than the national rate of 14.2%. Unfortunately, there is limited research that assesses the safety of food service establishments in different socioeconomic neighbourhoods. This study examined the relationship between the number of CVs in chain and independent restaurants and median household income in three communities within Surrey. Methods: Secondary data was used for this study. The researcher collected publicly accessible restaurant inspection reports from the Fraser Health website. Three communities (Whalley, Fleetwood, South Surrey) within Surrey were selected for comparison according to their median household income (from City of Surrey Community Demographic Profiles webpage). Whalley and South Surrey had the lowest and highest median household income, respectively. Fleetwood was chosen based on its proximity to the median household income for Surrey. The researcher then recorded the name and restaurant type within these communities using Zomato. 25 chain and 25 independent restaurants were randomly selected in each community. In total, 150 restaurants were analyzed. The number of CVs, violation code, and hazard rating were compared between January 2016 and December 2017. Results: Independent restaurants were found to have more CVs than chain restaurants in all communities. There was an association between the number of CVs observed in both types of restaurants and the restaurant's hazard rating. The p-values for chain restaurants in Whalley, Fleetwood, and South Surrey are: 0.00, 0.00006, and 0.00, respectively. Meanwhile the p-values for independent restaurants in all three communities are 0.00. In general, independent restaurants had more moderate or high hazard ratings than chain restaurants. The top four CVs found in all communities were related to poor sanitation of equipment, improper storage of cold potentially hazardous foods,and lack of adequate handwashing stations. Finally, a negative correlation was observed between the number of CVs in both restaurant types and the neighbourhood median household income (p-value for chain and independent restaurants = 0.0186 and 0.0073, respectively). Conclusion: The findings indicate that communities with lower median household income had more CVs. Further research is needed to analyze this relationship. In addition, chain restaurants have fewer CVs than independent restaurants possibly due to their internal food safety monitoring systems. Therefore, independent restaurants may benefit from more education because this pattern has been observed in the past. Finally, an educational intervention is potentially necessary for restaurant operators in Surrey to reduce the top four CVs, thereby improving the restaurants' hazard rating.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».