The Good...
TRACK 1 "Standup" Formal Paper: Contemporary Research in Hospitality and Tourism - the primary objective of this track is to provide a forum for reporting "state-of-the-art" research in hospitality and tourism. Papers submitted for this track will feature innovative concepts, models, theories, and/or research methods. This track includes papers based on completed research studies by graduate students in either master's or doctoral programs and undergraduate honors students. Papers based on completed master's theses, doctoral dissertations, honors projects would fall into this category.
Accepted papers in this category are eligible for the "Best Conference Paper Awards.” To be selected, the paper must have a sound demonstration of proper research design, notable data collection, advanced levels of relevant data analyses, comprehensive literature review preceding the study, and exhibit possible implications for real world problems.
A RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS OF RESTAURANT INSPECTION VIOLATIONS, EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS, AND INSPECTION GRADES
INTRODUCTION
The foodservice industry is projected to reach 925,000 locations and have sales of $558 Billion in 2008 (National Restaurant Association [NRA], 2008). For the years 2001 to 2006, the foodservice industry has maintained increases of new locations at a pace of 2.1% to 2.5% yearly (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). In addition, it is forecasted that an average of 133 million individuals eat in foodservice operations on a typical day in America (NRA, 2008). As the foodservice industry continues to grow and more people eat meals away from home, restaurants’ sanitary procedures should be evaluated to ensure that the food being served is free from contamination.
In an effort to establish a means for consumers to understand the sanitary conditions within a foodservice establishment, government officials, in connection with state restaurant associations and culinary professionals have created restaurant inspection reports that are particular for the state or locality represented (Restaurant Inspection, 2005). Most restaurant inspections contain a section pertaining to potential sources of foodborne illness and another section for other items of sanitary concern. The items listed within these two sections are the violations that the inspector looks for in the establishment. Violations that are considered potential sources of foodborne illness are weighted higher than violations related to design and maintenance (Restaurant Inspection, 2005). While the public generally never sees the actual foodservice inspection form, the inspection results, either a grade or satisfactory/unsatisfactory rating, are normally posted near the entrance of the establishment, if there is a requirement for posting the grade (Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al., 2006, p. 279).
Over the last few years, incidents of foodborne illness outbreaks have increased in restaurants (World Health Organization, 2007), and it is “…estimated that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year” Meade et. al. (1999) [sic] (as cited in U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005, p. Preface i) (Foodborne Illness, 2005). With this increase in foodborne illnesses, it is imperative that operators within the hospitality industry stay informed with up to date information as it pertains to federal, state, and local health regulations. Many times, operators are cited for failing to meet the standards established by either local or state governments because they have been instructed to understand and apply the standards of the FDA’s (Food & Drug Administration) model Food Code, rather than local regulations.
When foodservice sanitation procedures are not verified or consistent, establishments tend to become lax in their ability to be diligent about sanitation (Griffith, 2005). The results that occur when foodservice establishments are not enforcing sanitation procedures can be deadly. The Jack in the Box E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak of 1993 which killed four children and infected hundreds of others grabbed the attention of foodservice managers. The confirmed cause of this outbreak was the result of an employee behavior where the hamburgers were not cooked to the required minimum internal temperature of 155° (“Last Patient Is," 1993). Even though this outbreak occurred more than 15 years ago, it is still considered significant due to the deaths associated with it and as recently as 2001, still defined the company. As quoted in Advertising Age, “While Burger King was known for the Whopper, McDonalds was known for the Big Mac, Jack in the Box was known for E. coli” (MacArthur, 2001, p. 4).
The purpose of the paper is to determine whether employee behaviors or non-employee behaviors have a more significant effect on health inspection grades given by the Southern Nevada Health District. As the media attention of foodborne illness outbreaks continue to rise, it is imperative to discover whether the majority of inspection violations stem from employee behaviors or from items not related to employee behavior, such as facilities or equipment problems. For the purposes of this study, employee behavior related violations are defined as those activities which are under the direct control of employees and managers, while non-employee behavior violations are items which are not under the direct control of employees or managers. For example, employees following the proper steps to wash their hands are considered an employee behavior, while ensuring that the operation has appropriate handwashing facilities is a non-employee behavior. It is hypothesized that employee behaviors have a greater impact on health inspection grades than non-employee behaviors. This study will analyze foodservice health inspections from the SNHD in an effort to substantiate this hypothesis.
METHODOLOGY
Secondary data was collected from 205 restaurant inspection forms received from the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD). SNHD was selected because of its convenient location and ability to provide a significant random sample. The proportion of inspections of various categories of establishments was based on data collected from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2007). The BLS data showed that 46.4% of the industry (food services and drinking places) consists of limited-service establishments, such as fast food and cafeterias, while 39.0% are full service establishments that have increased menu categories and provide table service in surroundings that are generally regarded as comfortable (BLS, 2007). In addition, 5.4% of the market is described as special food service that offers items which are unique to them, such as yogurt or ice-cream. Lastly, 9.2% of this industry consists of drinking places which are regularly noted as bars or taverns (BLS, 2007). The restaurant inspection reports collected were provided by the SNHD in the same proportions as the operations within the industry, but were randomly selected by SNHD supervisors as to name, location, type of ownership, and who performed the inspection.
The investigator requested that the SNHD supply only those reports that contained grades other than ‘A’. Since ‘A’ grades are based on 10 demerits or less up to and including no violations he felt that the removal of these grades from the study would give a more statistically accurate portrait of employee behavior based violations. Of the 205 restaurant health inspections collected, 14 coded as other/unknown as to the type of establishment were removed from the statistical calculations.
Restaurant Inspection forms from the SNHD are divided into two parts. Part one contains the critical violations and is distinguished by the red color of the form. It is stated that “These items relate directly to the protection of the public from foodborne illness. These items are NOT NEGOTIABLE AND MUST BE CORRECTED. Repeated violations of any RED ITEM may lead to enforcement actions being initiated or permit suspension” (Regulation 96, 1999, p. 45). This part has 22 violations with demerits ranging from two to ten points each. There are 15 violations within this section that can be directly related to employee behavior. Alternatively, part two consists of items relating to the sanitation, design, and maintenance of the establishment and is colored blue. The form states that “These items relate to maintenance of food service operations and cleanliness. Violations of these items should be corrected by the next regular inspection or a compliance schedule may be established by the Health Authority. Repeated violations may lead to enforcement actions” (Regulation 96, 1999, p. 45). There are 24 violations within this section with a demerit range of one to three points each. A total of nine of these items can be affected by employee behavior.
In addition, the inspection reports contain information pertaining to the number of demerits and grade from any previous inspection. For the purposes of this study, each violation was counted once, regardless of the number of demerits associated with it. While the demerits determine the severity of the individual violations, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate how each violation affects the overall grade on the health inspections and it was determined that the demerits would add extra weight to a majority of the employee behavior violations and would ultimately invalidate the results.
The breakdown of each inspection was processed using SPSS to test for statistical inferences within the gathered data. Tests were compiled based on grade, type, status, and a breakdown of the forty-six individual violations. For the purpose of this study, the dependent variables include the grades, types, and status of each establishment, while the 46 violations are the independent variables.
RESULTS
A total of 191 useable restaurant health inspections were collected from the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD). The inspections were separated into five types of restaurants based on the information gathered from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are 46 violations listed on the SNHD restaurant health inspection form, of which 25 have been determined to be controlled by employee behavior. During data entry, it was discovered that five of the 46 violations produced no results and were removed from the study. Three of the five violations were part of the 25 employee behavior based violations and included: employee restrictions; 155° minimum: Pork; Washed fruits and vegetables. Live animals and NRS 202.2491, Smoking were the non-employee behavior based violations that were removed. In all, the study resulted in a total of 1990 violations from the 191 inspections.
Twenty-two employee behavior related violations and 19 non-employee behavior related violations remained after removal of the violations with no results. Employee behavior related violations accounted for 48.5% of the total violations while non-employee behavior related violations accounted for the remaining 51.5%. All violations were tested together using the SPSS Probit function to determine how each violation affects the grade and status of the foodservice establishments.
The results were reviewed to establish the statistical significance of each variable on the study. Statistical significance of each variable was determined if the P-value of the test statistic (variable) was less than the alpha level (α < .05), and establishes that a relationship exists between the independent and dependent variables. If the P-value of the test statistic (variable) was more than the alpha level (α > .05) then the results indicated that a relationship did not exist and the variable was deemed as insignificant.
In addition to investigating the data by grade, analysis was also performed based on the status of the food establishment. Status was separated into three options determined by the information contained on the 191 restaurant inspections. The three options consisted of ‘active’, ‘closed’, or ‘other/not approved’. For an establishment to be coded as closed, the health inspection would have an attachment that says “establishment closed due to substantial health violations”, while active coding resulted from those without the closed determination, and other/not approved was specific to an establishment applying for transfer of ownership. The amount of data for each status is significant, with the exception of ‘other’ (Active = 174, Closed = 16).
As with the analysis by grade, probability factors can also be calculated for the status of the foodservice establishment. Of notable difference between grade and status is the significance of specific violations that are either consistent between the two categories or exclusively significant to one category. For example, variables 5 (Proper cooling), 6-2 (Foods requiring 155°) and 28 (Approved food contact surfaces) were significant for grade while variables 19 (Required labels and signs) and 34 (Pest control) were significant for status. Continued analysis would need to be conducted to determine the ultimate significance of these items in determining the resulting grade or status of the foodservice establishment. Additionally, with the exception of variable 28 (Approved food contact surface), the other four exclusive violations are employee behavior based.
Each restaurant inspection was categorized by its type of food establishment; full service, limited service, specialty, bar/tavern, or other. The counts for each type are large enough to allow for statistical inference (Full Service = 76, Limited Service = 83, Specialty = 16, & Bar/Tavern = 16). Based on these results, the violations that significantly impact the type of establishment are primarily contingent on factors outside of the control of employee behavior. Four statistically significant violations are based on employee behavior. However, violation 12 (handwashing), considered by the literature as an important factor in keeping food safe, is on the accept/reject line of being statistically significant (P < 0.05). It is possible that handwashing would not be a significant indicator for the type of restaurant being inspected.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the literature and the results of this research, employee behavior will significantly impact the grade results of foodservice health inspections. In particular, this research confirmed that the five risk factors associated with foodborne illness are still a concern for foodservice establishments when compared to the studies from CDC, 2000; FDA Retail Food, 2000; and Managing Food Safety, 2006. Additionally, this study also confirmed that the common practice of inadequate handwashing and poor personal hygiene, which contributes too heavily to foodborne illness, is a significant factor within foodservice operations (Pragle et al., 2007). As a result, this study has provided vital information in the ultimate fight against foodborne illness outbreaks. With a better understanding of which employee behaviors affect the grade of health inspections, studies can be conducted to see the overall impact that training and reinforcement has on the incidence of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Restaurant health inspections are a good measure of the sanitary conditions within a foodservice establishment. It was hypothesized that the employee behavior based violations would have more of an effect than non-employee based violations on the resulting grade and status of the foodservice establishment. The data analysis of the violations based on the resulting grade and status, processed through SPSS, resulted in a confirmation of the hypothesis. It can therefore be concluded that employee behavior based violations significantly impact the grade and status of a foodservice operation.
The results of this research established a basic understanding of the employee behaviors that impact the foodservice inspection scores of establishments within the Southern Nevada area. In an area that catered to 38.9 million visitors in 2006, an understanding of the behaviors that lead to foodborne illness is vitally important for the economy (2006 Las Vegas Year, 2007). With an estimated 76 million foodborne illnesses annually in the United States, not utilizing this research to ensure that behaviors are being modified could result in multitudes of preventable illnesses. It is hoped that the research and results contained in this report will be used to reinforce the notion that employees are the issue and the solution to controlling the possibility of foodborne illness outbreaks.
REFERENCES
2006 Las Vegas year-to-date executive summary. (2007). Retrieved April 6, 2008, from Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority Web site: http://www.lvcva.com/press/statistics-facts/index.jsp
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. (2007). Career guide to industries, 2008-09 edition. Retrieved December 29, 2007, from Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs023.htm
Centers for Disease Control, & Prevention. (2000). CDC surveillance summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49(SS-1), 64.
FDA retail food program steering committee. (2000). Report of the FDA retail food program database of foodborne illness risk factors (08/10/00). Washington, DC: Author.
Foodborne Illness. (2005). Retrieved April 8, 2008, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm
Griffith, C. J. (2005). Are we making the most of food safety inspections? A glimpse into the future. British Food Journal, 107(3), 132 - 139.
Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al. (2006). Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: The role of inspection notices and other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26, 275 - 3001.
Last patient is released in jack in the box case. (1993, July 1). The New York Times, p. A.14.
MacArthur, K. (2001, February 19). Jack's fighting at fifty. Advertising Age, 72(8), 4-5.
Managing food safety: a regulator's manual for applying HACCP principles to risk-based retail and food service inspections and evaluating voluntary food safety management systems. (2006). Retrieved March 17, 2008, from U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hret3-1.html
National Restaurant Association. (2008). Pocket Factbook (2008 Restaurant Industry). Washington, DC: Author.
Pragle, A. S., Harding, A. K., & Mack, J. C. (2007). Food workers' perspectives on handwashing behaviors and barriers in the restaurant environment. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(10), 27 - 32.
Regulation 96: clark county health district regulations governing the sanitation of food establishments. (1999). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from Southern Nevada Health District web site: http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/environmental_health_info.htm
Restaurant Inspection. (2005). Author. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from Southern Nevada Health District web site: http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/environmental_health/restaurant_inspection.htm
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2005). Food Code. In U.S. Public Health Service (Ed.), 2005 model Food Code (Preface). College Park, MD: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Industries at a glance (Food Services and Drinking Places: NAICS 722). Washington, DC: Author.
World Health Organization. (2007). Food safety and foodborne illness (fact sheet no237). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from World Health Organization web site: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/
Accepted papers in this category are eligible for the "Best Conference Paper Awards.” To be selected, the paper must have a sound demonstration of proper research design, notable data collection, advanced levels of relevant data analyses, comprehensive literature review preceding the study, and exhibit possible implications for real world problems.
A RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS OF RESTAURANT INSPECTION VIOLATIONS, EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS, AND INSPECTION GRADES
INTRODUCTION
The foodservice industry is projected to reach 925,000 locations and have sales of $558 Billion in 2008 (National Restaurant Association [NRA], 2008). For the years 2001 to 2006, the foodservice industry has maintained increases of new locations at a pace of 2.1% to 2.5% yearly (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). In addition, it is forecasted that an average of 133 million individuals eat in foodservice operations on a typical day in America (NRA, 2008). As the foodservice industry continues to grow and more people eat meals away from home, restaurants’ sanitary procedures should be evaluated to ensure that the food being served is free from contamination.
In an effort to establish a means for consumers to understand the sanitary conditions within a foodservice establishment, government officials, in connection with state restaurant associations and culinary professionals have created restaurant inspection reports that are particular for the state or locality represented (Restaurant Inspection, 2005). Most restaurant inspections contain a section pertaining to potential sources of foodborne illness and another section for other items of sanitary concern. The items listed within these two sections are the violations that the inspector looks for in the establishment. Violations that are considered potential sources of foodborne illness are weighted higher than violations related to design and maintenance (Restaurant Inspection, 2005). While the public generally never sees the actual foodservice inspection form, the inspection results, either a grade or satisfactory/unsatisfactory rating, are normally posted near the entrance of the establishment, if there is a requirement for posting the grade (Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al., 2006, p. 279).
Over the last few years, incidents of foodborne illness outbreaks have increased in restaurants (World Health Organization, 2007), and it is “…estimated that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year” Meade et. al. (1999) [sic] (as cited in U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005, p. Preface i) (Foodborne Illness, 2005). With this increase in foodborne illnesses, it is imperative that operators within the hospitality industry stay informed with up to date information as it pertains to federal, state, and local health regulations. Many times, operators are cited for failing to meet the standards established by either local or state governments because they have been instructed to understand and apply the standards of the FDA’s (Food & Drug Administration) model Food Code, rather than local regulations.
When foodservice sanitation procedures are not verified or consistent, establishments tend to become lax in their ability to be diligent about sanitation (Griffith, 2005). The results that occur when foodservice establishments are not enforcing sanitation procedures can be deadly. The Jack in the Box E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak of 1993 which killed four children and infected hundreds of others grabbed the attention of foodservice managers. The confirmed cause of this outbreak was the result of an employee behavior where the hamburgers were not cooked to the required minimum internal temperature of 155° (“Last Patient Is," 1993). Even though this outbreak occurred more than 15 years ago, it is still considered significant due to the deaths associated with it and as recently as 2001, still defined the company. As quoted in Advertising Age, “While Burger King was known for the Whopper, McDonalds was known for the Big Mac, Jack in the Box was known for E. coli” (MacArthur, 2001, p. 4).
The purpose of the paper is to determine whether employee behaviors or non-employee behaviors have a more significant effect on health inspection grades given by the Southern Nevada Health District. As the media attention of foodborne illness outbreaks continue to rise, it is imperative to discover whether the majority of inspection violations stem from employee behaviors or from items not related to employee behavior, such as facilities or equipment problems. For the purposes of this study, employee behavior related violations are defined as those activities which are under the direct control of employees and managers, while non-employee behavior violations are items which are not under the direct control of employees or managers. For example, employees following the proper steps to wash their hands are considered an employee behavior, while ensuring that the operation has appropriate handwashing facilities is a non-employee behavior. It is hypothesized that employee behaviors have a greater impact on health inspection grades than non-employee behaviors. This study will analyze foodservice health inspections from the SNHD in an effort to substantiate this hypothesis.
METHODOLOGY
Secondary data was collected from 205 restaurant inspection forms received from the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD). SNHD was selected because of its convenient location and ability to provide a significant random sample. The proportion of inspections of various categories of establishments was based on data collected from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2007). The BLS data showed that 46.4% of the industry (food services and drinking places) consists of limited-service establishments, such as fast food and cafeterias, while 39.0% are full service establishments that have increased menu categories and provide table service in surroundings that are generally regarded as comfortable (BLS, 2007). In addition, 5.4% of the market is described as special food service that offers items which are unique to them, such as yogurt or ice-cream. Lastly, 9.2% of this industry consists of drinking places which are regularly noted as bars or taverns (BLS, 2007). The restaurant inspection reports collected were provided by the SNHD in the same proportions as the operations within the industry, but were randomly selected by SNHD supervisors as to name, location, type of ownership, and who performed the inspection.
The investigator requested that the SNHD supply only those reports that contained grades other than ‘A’. Since ‘A’ grades are based on 10 demerits or less up to and including no violations he felt that the removal of these grades from the study would give a more statistically accurate portrait of employee behavior based violations. Of the 205 restaurant health inspections collected, 14 coded as other/unknown as to the type of establishment were removed from the statistical calculations.
Restaurant Inspection forms from the SNHD are divided into two parts. Part one contains the critical violations and is distinguished by the red color of the form. It is stated that “These items relate directly to the protection of the public from foodborne illness. These items are NOT NEGOTIABLE AND MUST BE CORRECTED. Repeated violations of any RED ITEM may lead to enforcement actions being initiated or permit suspension” (Regulation 96, 1999, p. 45). This part has 22 violations with demerits ranging from two to ten points each. There are 15 violations within this section that can be directly related to employee behavior. Alternatively, part two consists of items relating to the sanitation, design, and maintenance of the establishment and is colored blue. The form states that “These items relate to maintenance of food service operations and cleanliness. Violations of these items should be corrected by the next regular inspection or a compliance schedule may be established by the Health Authority. Repeated violations may lead to enforcement actions” (Regulation 96, 1999, p. 45). There are 24 violations within this section with a demerit range of one to three points each. A total of nine of these items can be affected by employee behavior.
In addition, the inspection reports contain information pertaining to the number of demerits and grade from any previous inspection. For the purposes of this study, each violation was counted once, regardless of the number of demerits associated with it. While the demerits determine the severity of the individual violations, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate how each violation affects the overall grade on the health inspections and it was determined that the demerits would add extra weight to a majority of the employee behavior violations and would ultimately invalidate the results.
The breakdown of each inspection was processed using SPSS to test for statistical inferences within the gathered data. Tests were compiled based on grade, type, status, and a breakdown of the forty-six individual violations. For the purpose of this study, the dependent variables include the grades, types, and status of each establishment, while the 46 violations are the independent variables.
RESULTS
A total of 191 useable restaurant health inspections were collected from the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD). The inspections were separated into five types of restaurants based on the information gathered from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are 46 violations listed on the SNHD restaurant health inspection form, of which 25 have been determined to be controlled by employee behavior. During data entry, it was discovered that five of the 46 violations produced no results and were removed from the study. Three of the five violations were part of the 25 employee behavior based violations and included: employee restrictions; 155° minimum: Pork; Washed fruits and vegetables. Live animals and NRS 202.2491, Smoking were the non-employee behavior based violations that were removed. In all, the study resulted in a total of 1990 violations from the 191 inspections.
Twenty-two employee behavior related violations and 19 non-employee behavior related violations remained after removal of the violations with no results. Employee behavior related violations accounted for 48.5% of the total violations while non-employee behavior related violations accounted for the remaining 51.5%. All violations were tested together using the SPSS Probit function to determine how each violation affects the grade and status of the foodservice establishments.
The results were reviewed to establish the statistical significance of each variable on the study. Statistical significance of each variable was determined if the P-value of the test statistic (variable) was less than the alpha level (α < .05), and establishes that a relationship exists between the independent and dependent variables. If the P-value of the test statistic (variable) was more than the alpha level (α > .05) then the results indicated that a relationship did not exist and the variable was deemed as insignificant.
In addition to investigating the data by grade, analysis was also performed based on the status of the food establishment. Status was separated into three options determined by the information contained on the 191 restaurant inspections. The three options consisted of ‘active’, ‘closed’, or ‘other/not approved’. For an establishment to be coded as closed, the health inspection would have an attachment that says “establishment closed due to substantial health violations”, while active coding resulted from those without the closed determination, and other/not approved was specific to an establishment applying for transfer of ownership. The amount of data for each status is significant, with the exception of ‘other’ (Active = 174, Closed = 16).
As with the analysis by grade, probability factors can also be calculated for the status of the foodservice establishment. Of notable difference between grade and status is the significance of specific violations that are either consistent between the two categories or exclusively significant to one category. For example, variables 5 (Proper cooling), 6-2 (Foods requiring 155°) and 28 (Approved food contact surfaces) were significant for grade while variables 19 (Required labels and signs) and 34 (Pest control) were significant for status. Continued analysis would need to be conducted to determine the ultimate significance of these items in determining the resulting grade or status of the foodservice establishment. Additionally, with the exception of variable 28 (Approved food contact surface), the other four exclusive violations are employee behavior based.
Each restaurant inspection was categorized by its type of food establishment; full service, limited service, specialty, bar/tavern, or other. The counts for each type are large enough to allow for statistical inference (Full Service = 76, Limited Service = 83, Specialty = 16, & Bar/Tavern = 16). Based on these results, the violations that significantly impact the type of establishment are primarily contingent on factors outside of the control of employee behavior. Four statistically significant violations are based on employee behavior. However, violation 12 (handwashing), considered by the literature as an important factor in keeping food safe, is on the accept/reject line of being statistically significant (P < 0.05). It is possible that handwashing would not be a significant indicator for the type of restaurant being inspected.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the literature and the results of this research, employee behavior will significantly impact the grade results of foodservice health inspections. In particular, this research confirmed that the five risk factors associated with foodborne illness are still a concern for foodservice establishments when compared to the studies from CDC, 2000; FDA Retail Food, 2000; and Managing Food Safety, 2006. Additionally, this study also confirmed that the common practice of inadequate handwashing and poor personal hygiene, which contributes too heavily to foodborne illness, is a significant factor within foodservice operations (Pragle et al., 2007). As a result, this study has provided vital information in the ultimate fight against foodborne illness outbreaks. With a better understanding of which employee behaviors affect the grade of health inspections, studies can be conducted to see the overall impact that training and reinforcement has on the incidence of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Restaurant health inspections are a good measure of the sanitary conditions within a foodservice establishment. It was hypothesized that the employee behavior based violations would have more of an effect than non-employee based violations on the resulting grade and status of the foodservice establishment. The data analysis of the violations based on the resulting grade and status, processed through SPSS, resulted in a confirmation of the hypothesis. It can therefore be concluded that employee behavior based violations significantly impact the grade and status of a foodservice operation.
The results of this research established a basic understanding of the employee behaviors that impact the foodservice inspection scores of establishments within the Southern Nevada area. In an area that catered to 38.9 million visitors in 2006, an understanding of the behaviors that lead to foodborne illness is vitally important for the economy (2006 Las Vegas Year, 2007). With an estimated 76 million foodborne illnesses annually in the United States, not utilizing this research to ensure that behaviors are being modified could result in multitudes of preventable illnesses. It is hoped that the research and results contained in this report will be used to reinforce the notion that employees are the issue and the solution to controlling the possibility of foodborne illness outbreaks.
REFERENCES
2006 Las Vegas year-to-date executive summary. (2007). Retrieved April 6, 2008, from Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority Web site: http://www.lvcva.com/press/statistics-facts/index.jsp
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. (2007). Career guide to industries, 2008-09 edition. Retrieved December 29, 2007, from Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs023.htm
Centers for Disease Control, & Prevention. (2000). CDC surveillance summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49(SS-1), 64.
FDA retail food program steering committee. (2000). Report of the FDA retail food program database of foodborne illness risk factors (08/10/00). Washington, DC: Author.
Foodborne Illness. (2005). Retrieved April 8, 2008, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm
Griffith, C. J. (2005). Are we making the most of food safety inspections? A glimpse into the future. British Food Journal, 107(3), 132 - 139.
Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al. (2006). Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: The role of inspection notices and other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26, 275 - 3001.
Last patient is released in jack in the box case. (1993, July 1). The New York Times, p. A.14.
MacArthur, K. (2001, February 19). Jack's fighting at fifty. Advertising Age, 72(8), 4-5.
Managing food safety: a regulator's manual for applying HACCP principles to risk-based retail and food service inspections and evaluating voluntary food safety management systems. (2006). Retrieved March 17, 2008, from U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/hret3-1.html
National Restaurant Association. (2008). Pocket Factbook (2008 Restaurant Industry). Washington, DC: Author.
Pragle, A. S., Harding, A. K., & Mack, J. C. (2007). Food workers' perspectives on handwashing behaviors and barriers in the restaurant environment. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(10), 27 - 32.
Regulation 96: clark county health district regulations governing the sanitation of food establishments. (1999). Retrieved January 9, 2008, from Southern Nevada Health District web site: http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/environmental_health_info.htm
Restaurant Inspection. (2005). Author. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from Southern Nevada Health District web site: http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/environmental_health/restaurant_inspection.htm
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2005). Food Code. In U.S. Public Health Service (Ed.), 2005 model Food Code (Preface). College Park, MD: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Industries at a glance (Food Services and Drinking Places: NAICS 722). Washington, DC: Author.
World Health Organization. (2007). Food safety and foodborne illness (fact sheet no237). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from World Health Organization web site: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/