1 / 26

Agenda

Attribution Model -Integrated Food Protection Training System Kieran J. Fogarty, PhD. Interdisciplinary Health Sciences PhD. Program Western Michigan University. Agenda. Brief Overview of IFPTI, FDA, CDC and other Federal Agency Efforts in Food Safety Training for Food Regulators

nizana
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attribution Model -Integrated Food Protection Training System Kieran J. Fogarty, PhD.Interdisciplinary Health Sciences PhD. Program Western Michigan University

  2. Agenda • Brief Overview of IFPTI, FDA, CDC and other Federal Agency Efforts in Food Safety Training for Food Regulators • Panel Discussion • Feasibility of Conducting Impact/Attribution Modeling for Food Safety Training for Food Regulators • Operational Steps for Implementation of Impact/Attribution Modeling in Food Safety Training for Food Regulators

  3. Under-Trained, Under-Funded • State and local agencies perform more than 90% of all food safety inspections conducted at U.S. food manufacturing and distribution establishments. Yet, there is: • No Mandatory Training Requirement • No Career-Spanning Standards-Based Training Curriculum • No National Integrated Food Safety System • The overwhelming reason for the lack of training at the state and local level is inadequate funding.

  4. Integrated National Food Safety System 50 State Meeting - 1998 FDA Food Protection Plan - 2004 50 State Meeting – 2008 GWU Report – “Enhancing Roles of State & Local…” FDA Internal & External Workgroups White House Working Group 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act

  5. FDA Training and Certification System

  6. IFPTI Role In Building IFSS Training Infrastructure • Specific Aim #1 Develop and deliver standards-based training programs not currently offered through a Curriculum • Specific Aim #2 Develop a Training Network to provide technical, management, and leadership training to regulatory and public health officials • Specific Aim #3 Serve as a hub for the administration of the Training Network • Specific Aim #4 • Build an Instructor Cadre

  7. Food & Agriculture Protection Training Consortium

  8. Food Safety Course Inventory Over 700 existing courses identified and classified

  9. Challenges - Existing Courses: Lack standardization • Availability • Consistency • Lack peer review • Updating to current policies • Duplication • Contradictions There are no standards in place for food protection course development, determining course needs, setting priorities, etc.

  10. Knowledge, Skills, Abilities Education – knowledge base Training – skills development Employee Development - growth of skills and abilities through conscious and unconscious learning Development includes education and training as well as: • Coaching • Observing • Mentoring

  11. Key Deliverables • Inventory all existing training courses • Identify competencies and job descriptions • Sync with FDA JTA process • Build the national curriculum • Identify quality course standards • Develop course acceptance procedures • Prioritize development against curriculum • Pursue IACET and ANSI quality standards

  12. Building a National Food Protection Curriculum

  13. Key Deliverables • Establish a learning management system • Create a common registration system/ house student data • Identify quality standards for instructors • Build instructor capacity • Set certification paths through program certificates

  14. National Curriculum Certification & Standards CEUs Maintenance requirements Hours on the job Standardization Professional Certification Course Certificates Program Certificates

  15. IFPTI Participants by State Report Period: April 1, 2009- July 19, 2011 NH-11 WA- 38 VT-2 ME-2 MT-6 ND-2 OR-23 MN-42 MA-15 ID SD-1 WI-26 NY-41 MI-341 WY-1 RI-1 PA-22 IA-6 CT-3 NE-10 NV-1 OH-13 IN-23 NJ-5 IL-44 UT-14 DE-1 CO-8 WV-6 MO-6 VA-55 KS-9 MD-30 CA-16 KY-37 NC-27 DC-11 TN-2 AZ-11 OK-9 SC-12 NM-4 AR MS-76 GA-19 AL- 39 TX-86 FL-66 LA-65 AK-9 HI-3 Armenia-2 India-1 Canada-3 Turks & Caicos Islands-2 China-3 Vietnam-2 Iceland-3 Total # of Students: 1329

  16. A Community of Action Advancing Food Protection

  17. Food Protection Training Research Council

  18. Purpose • Determine the feasibility and interest in the potentialestablishment of an impact model for determining the levels of attribution of an integrated national food protection training system in reducing the prevalence of food borne illness in the United States. • Members: USDA, FDA, IFPTI,CDC, DHS.

  19. Research Council Goals • Develop evidence of impact of standards-based training • Linking standard-based training to meaningful associated outcome measures to determine effectiveness. • Metrics to measure public health impact of a fully –integrated food safety training and certification system

  20. Issues to Resolve • Should we primarily focus the development of our effectiveness modeling on outcomes linked to prevention instead of adverse events (food borne illness)? • Should we utilize existing models or develop new modeling foundation for our specific needs? • Recognize disciplinary variances in assumptions regarding modeling expectations (Economics, Epidemiology, Applied Statistics, Managements)

  21. Potential Data Sources • Closed Systems (easier to access) • Secondary data of existing surveillance systems • Study outbreaks associated to specific pathogens linked to specific training efforts

  22. Potential Analytical Issues • Do we need to determine the expected error rate of what we should expect as the number of illnesses with an ideal training system (baseline)? • Should we establish “errors of training’ measurements?

  23. Agreement • We need a model that is rigorous enough that will allow us to gather information to determine if training makes a difference. • The issue then becomes what we mean by “difference” which seems to be a critical first issue to resolve. • Different levels of modeling based on specific needs of site specific instances might be needed. • Link training to more probable outcome measures which focuses more on prevention instead of a reduction in reported food borne illnesses. • We should consider a model that accounts for quality measures at each step in the food chain to determine: knowledge/attitude/practice.

  24. Summary • Need Interdisciplinary group with common interest in attributing training initiatives to measure impacts • Realistic expectations – impact modeling has inherent flaws • Foundation for cost-effectiveness analysis, policy • making and identifying EB training research

  25. Discussion – Next Steps

More Related