Post on 04-Jan-2016
Standard 4 – Inspection Audit Program
Amir JavedMFRPS Program SpecialistCalifornia Department of
Public Health
Tuesday March 10, 2015
Julie LoeraFood Safety Officer
Texas Department of State Health Services
MAKING STANDARD 4 WORK FOR YOUCalifornia and Texas Programs
Not One Size Fits All
• Discussion within program on key elements
• Discussion with other states similar to yours
• Development of a written procedure• Updating the procedure
Not One Size Fits All• Discussion within program on key
elements – Different approaches to meeting all elements– Breakdown elements of this standard – Identify key staff to work on different components– Assess your states needs and identify goals• What is already established • What needs to be created
– Set timelines
Not One Size Fits All
• Discussion of FDA Contract Auditing• Discussion with other states similar to
yours– Reach out to other states– Get their input– Inquire about their hurdles and what worked well
for them
Not One Size Fits All
• Development of a written procedure– Establish a protocol for written procedure– Assign out different components of the procedure to
identified staff for completion– Identify reviewers
• E.g. 1st, 2nd, final
– Set timeline– In CA & TX – we converted worksheets 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 in
excel documents for easier compilation and evaluation of audit findings
Not One Size Fits All
• Updating the procedure– Make updates as necessary– Never set parameters so stringent that you have
difficulty meeting them– Keep change logs for all updates
The Standard Elements• Field audit component• Inspection reports audit• Samples report audits• Compilation of results annually • Evaluation of results annually to determine
program improvement needs• Development of Correction Action plans for
performance factors with ratings below 80%
The Standard Elements• Field audit component– Done through out the year as defined in you procedure– Audit Tools (FDA form 3610 or equivalent)– Compiling audit finding – worksheet 4.2 or equivalent– Evaluation of results
• Calculating performance ratings
– Corrective Action Plans (rating<80%)• Performance factors vs. individual audits
– Use of FDA Contract Audits
The Standard Elements• Inspection reports audit component– Done through out the year as defined in you procedure– Reports selection process
• 75 vs. CA (3/Inspector) & TX (2/Inspector)
– Audit Tools (Appendix 4.3 or equivalent)– Compiling audit finding – worksheet 4.3 or equivalent– Evaluation of results
• Calculating performance ratings (excel docs CA & TX)
– Corrective Action Plans (rating<80%)• Performance factors vs. individual report audits
The Standard Elements• Sample reports audit component– Done through out the year as defined in you procedure– Reports selection process
• Randomly selected 75 reports/year
– Audit Tools (Appendix 4.4 or equivalent)– Compiling audit finding – worksheet 4.4 or equivalent– Evaluation of results
• Calculating performance ratings (excel docs CA & TX)
– Corrective Action Plans (rating<80%)• Performance factors vs. individual report audits
Written Procedures to define• roles and responsibilities– Who is going to collect, compile, and evaluate
• qualifications for auditors– E.g. FMD 76 trained, 5 years of experience, etc.
• timeframes for field audits– 2/36months
• timeframes and selection process for report audits– When is it done (CA vs. TX)– 75 vs. #of reports/inspector
Written Procedures to define• timeframes and selection process for
sample audits– When is it done (CA vs. TX)– 75 randomly selected
• compiling audit findings• reviewing audit findings• how to address corrective actions• how to address individual remediation
MEETING THE STANDARD BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS
California and Texas Programs
Audit Element
• Roles and Responsibilities– Auditor– Inspector– Manager/Supervisor
• Qualification of Auditors– Background– Classroom training– Clearing the Auditor
Audit Element
• Timeframes for field audits–How often– Facilities selected–Use of FDA Contract Audits to meet
Standard
Audit Element
• Timeframes for report and sample audits– Time frame–How Selected• 7%• Across Inspectors
Compilation Element
–Compilation of Audit Findings•Who is responsible•When is it done•Master audit summary forms from
Standards• State Developed Forms
Evaluating Element
–Evaluating Audit Findings•Who is responsible•When is it done• Excel as a tool
Corrective Action Element
• Individual Inspection Audit Ratings–Remediation to address performance issues–Remediation to address individual audits–Who is responsible–Documentation
Corrective Action Element
• Overall Audit and Performance Factor Ratings–Development of Corrective Action Plans– Tracking Completion of Plans
Closing Thoughts
Contact Information
Julie Loera
Food Safety Officer
Texas Department of State Health Services
Julie Loera@dshs.state.tx.us
Contact Information
Amir Javed
MFRPS Program Specialist
California Department of Public Health
Amir.Javed@cdph.ca.gov