Table 2

Revised Barnes model for food safety inspection

Outside inspection cycle
  • i.

    Professional development, critical reflection and prolonged engagement

  • ii.

    Peer review

Theoretical perspectives to underpin inspection
  • iii.

    Identify the purpose of food safety inspection

  • iv.

    Adopt a research approach

  • v.

    A research question

  • vi.

    Adopt hypothesis

  • vii.

    Apply a hypothetico-deductive approach (adapted negative case analysis)

Preparative processes
  • 1.

    Identify optimal time for inspection (for data gathering)

Initiating processes
  • 2.

    Define sample frame (by distinguishing and clustering control processes)

  • 3.

    Establish rapport

Investigative processes
  • 4.

    Systematically gather data for each instance/case in sample (using seven decision criteria)*

  • 5.

    Apply multiple methods and examine multiple sources

  • 6.

    Take inspection (field) notes using thick description

  • 7.

    Apply persistent observation to practices and environments of food business

  • 8.

    Informal member check

Interpretive processes
  • 9.

    Make determination of control

  • 10.

    Formal member check

  • 11.

    Take notes of interpretation using thick description (adapted journaling)

  • 12.

    Compare data and examine corroboration/discord

  • 13.

    Review historical data and other data (adapted referential adequacy)

  • 14.

    Peer debrief

Summative processes
  • 15.

    Declare limitations

  • 16.

    Synthesize inspection report integrating voices of participants

Note(s): *Decision criteria. (1) Can the critical limit/conditions be met? (2) Is the procedure adequate for the critical limit/conditions to be reliably met? Has it been validated? (3) Is the procedure known and understood? (4) Are the critical limit/conditions and dimensions of the hazard understood? Does it provide for adequate motivation, can staff identify key safety determinants and would staff be able to make determination of suitable corrective actions or select suitable procedural alternatives? (5) Is the procedure reliably and faithfully enacted? (6) Is the procedure enactment or critical limit/condition, or critical limit/condition proxy monitored? (7) Is the method of monitoring accurate and reliable?

Source(s): Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal