Food Protection Trends - July/August 2024 - 267

TABLE 6. Participants' beliefs about the effectiveness of written employee health policy
Frequency (n)a
%b
Most effective policy (n = 34)
If sick, don't come to work, leave work, report symptoms
What managers should look for, do, or monitor
Action plans, procedures, and instructions for each situation
Benefit to organization and customer
Updated or easy to understand guide
Personal hygiene requirement
Aligned with state and/or industry guidance and standards
Training and training guidance
Communicate policy
No barehand contact
Other (e.g., accessibility of the plan, accountability, wellness checks)
Least effective policy (n = 29)
Instructions for sick leave and close contact
Behavior monitoring (e.g., glove changing)
Lack of understanding/cause confusion
Still show for work when sick
Personal hygiene monitoring
List and checkbox fatigue
Other (e.g., ability to enforce is limited, misaligned with Food Code)
aMultiple responses by a participant could be provided to this open-ended question.
bPercentages were calculated based on the number of participants who provided at least one answer.
(83.6%) have reported that they regularly observe the
hygiene practices of their employees at least daily.
In relation to the knowledge of the six reportable FBIs
and their symptoms, 32.7% of managers reported that all
of their employees are knowledgeable about the six FBIs
and 43.6% indicated that half of their employees are aware
of them (Table 7). Of the remaining participants, 12.7% (n
= 7) indicated that few employees knew and 10.9% (n =
6) indicated none of the options given and wrote in their
answers (e.g., rarely, unknown).
Bare hand contact and handwashing
With respect to bare hand contact, more than half of
participants (68.3%, n = 41) said that their employee health
policy included guidelines prohibiting bare hand contact
with RTE food. Of those who answered that it was not
included (31.7%, n = 19), 10.5% said it was because their
regulatory authority permits it.
Half of the participants (50.0%, n = 56) reported using
novel approaches to promote proper handwashing, such
as using timers, assigning designated handwashing leaders,
having reminders through point-of-sale and public address
systems, and monitoring through devices such as headsets
and Apple watches (Table 8). Other approaches included
camera audits, marking towels, and monitoring of chemicals.
Based on the number of participants who provided at least
one answer (n = 22), less than half of these participants
(40.9%) described novel approaches related to frequency and
timing of handwashing as well as the use of device or message
reminders (40.9%); some identified active managerial
control and leader involvement (31.8%) and the use of timers
(27.3%) was a popular write-in response as well.
Many participants (42.2%) reported ensuring that
handwashing is a priority by providing regular and ongoing
training and education to their employees as well as
reinforcing or coaching the proper steps of handwashing
July/August Food Protection Trends 267
19
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
5
6
5
4
4
3
2
4
55.9
17.6
14.7
14.7
14.7
11.8
8.8
8.8
5.9
5.9
14.5
20.7
17.2
13.8
13.8
10.3
6.9
13.8
Food Protection Trends - July/August 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2024
