Good hygiene practices in hospital nutrition services: the view of internal and external auditors

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the hygienic-sanitary conditions of hospital nutrition services according to internal and external auditors, before and after intervention, based on the requirements of Good Hygiene Practices. Fifteen hospital nutrition services were evaluated based on a checklist applied by internal auditors and by an external auditor. The intervention program was prepared and implemented in all the locations over one year, and was composed of four points: 1) training; 2) preparation of the action plan; 3) preparation of the documentation; 4) monthly visits to motivate the food handlers and responsible technicians, accompaniment and assistance in the implementation of Good Hygiene Practices. An improvment in the application of Good Hygiene Practices was observed in the hospital nutrition services after the systematic intervention, in the view of both the internal and external auditors, except the requirement related to operational aspects, which had a low percentage of adequacy, both before and after the intervention Before the intervention, there was a significant difference between the evaluation of the internal auditors and the external auditor, which was not found later. These results suggest that the systematic intervention assisted in the adoption of Good Hygiene Practices by hospital nutrition services, according to both the internal and external auditors, and contributed to increasing the knowledge of the internal auditors.

Implementation of good hygiene practices in food trucks with and without the intervention of a food safety expert

“…The intervention group, which was aided by an external food professional, showed greater improvement than the control group in the second evaluation. These results are similar to the ones found in the studies by da Cunha et al () and Ababio et al () in schools; Serafim et al () in hotels; de Jesus et al () in a food transport company; Stangarlin‐Fiori et al () in hospital feeding units; and Barjaktarović‐Labovic et al () in the food industry. Therefore, the aid of a food safety expert contributes effectively to the implementation of good hygiene practices in the food truck and other foodservice segments.…”

“…Additionally, the categories list is not only a way to assess compliance to legislation requirements, but is also a guiding tool in terms of items that should be adapted in the establishments. On the other hand, the action plan comprises suggestions for improvements in items negatively evaluated, besides defining required investments, entitling a staff member as responsible for the items' adequacy, and establishing a deadline for the compliance (Stangarlin‐Fiori et al, ).…”

“…Therefore, the aid of a food safety expert contributes effectively to the implementation of good hygiene practices in the food truck and other foodservice segments. Such contribution is ascribed mainly to: (a) frequent audits and monitoring; (b) unbiased and rigorous evaluations; (c) technical training of food handlers; (d) motivation of staff; and (e) assistance with outsourced suppliers (da Cunha et al, ; Serafim et al, ; Stangarlin‐Fiori et al, ).…”

“…Considering the need to improve hygiene and sanitary control in the street food segment, that is, food trucks, the implementation of good hygiene practices in foodservices is required to establish a preventive food safety program (Serafim et al, 2015;Stangarlin-Fiori et al, 2016). This measure aims at improving hygiene and sanitary procedures and enhances safety in the stages of preparation and commercialization of food (Ababio, da Taylor, Swainson, & Daramola, 2016;Brasil, 2004;Olmedo, Stangarlin-Fiori, Medeiros, Tondo, & Ferreira, 2018).…”

“…Despite its benefits, the implementation of good hygiene practices in foodservices may be hindered by the following factors: (a) lack of technical training; (b) poor commitment by food handlers (de Jesus, Serafim, Medeiros, Peixoto, & Stangarlin-Fiori, 2016;Olmedo et al, 2018;Rebouças et al, 2017); (c) low financial resources (Rebouças et al, 2017); (d) insufficient time for the program implementation; and (e) inappropriate habits of staff in relation to daily procedures (de Jesus et al, 2016;Stangarlin-Fiori et al, 2016).…”