MODELING RISK OF FOODBORNE ILLNESS OUTBREAKS

• US 20120226621A1
• Filed: 03/02/2012
• Published: 09/06/2012
• Est. Priority Date: 03/03/2011
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Ecolab USA Incorporated (Ecolab, Inc.)
• Original Assignee: Ecolab USA Incorporated (Ecolab, Inc.)
• Inventors: White, Bruce W., Petran, Ruth L.
• Application Number:
  US13/411,362
• Publication Number:
  US 20120226621A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/317
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 50/80 for detecting, monitoring or modelling epidemics or pandemics, e.g. flu
• CPC Class Codes: G16Z 99/00 Subject matter not provided for in other main groups of this subclass
• CPC Class Codes: Y02A 90/10 Information and communication technologies [ICT] supporting adaptation to climate change, e.g. for weather forecasting or climate simulation

Abstract

A foodborne illness risk model determines a relationship between health department inspection data and various factors known to contribute to the risk of foodborne illness. The model may identify a comparative risk value for foodborne illness outbreaks for one or more pathogens at a food establishment based on the food establishment'"'"'s inspection data. The model may also identify a set of indicative violations more likely to be recorded at outbreak restaurants than non-outbreak restaurants. The model may also develop an outbreak profile continuum based on the number of indicative violations. The model may further determine a position on an outbreak profile continuum for a particular food establishment based on the food establishment'"'"'s inspection data.

Claims

1. A method comprising:

receiving inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak;

receiving inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks;

mapping the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that each experienced an associated foodborne illness outbreak to a standardized set of survey questions;

mapping the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks to the standardized set of survey questions; and

identifying a set of one or more indicative violations from among the standardized set of survey questions that were recorded more frequently in the restaurants that experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak than in the restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein receiving inspection data further comprises receiving at least one of one of a routine inspection report, a follow-up inspection report, or an investigational inspection report.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein receiving inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak further comprises receiving inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one of a Salmonella, a C. perfringens, or a norovirus outbreak.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations comprises determining a relative risk for each of the standardized set of survey questions based a failure rate per question for the plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak by a failure rate per question for the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

5. The method of claim 4 further comprising identifying the set of one or more indicative violations based on the relative risk for each of the standardized set of survey questions.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations further includes identifying a set of one or more indicative violations from among the standardized set of survey questions that are statistically more likely to be observed in the restaurants that experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak than in the restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a report that includes the set of one or more indicative violations.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a report recommending at least one of a training procedure, a food preparation product, a cleaning product, a hand washing product, or a personal hygiene product based on the indicative violations.

9. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations comprises identifying at least one of the standardized set of survey questions related to a contamination factor, a proliferation factors, or a survival factor.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations comprises comparing inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak with the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations comprises using a 2-proportion z-test to compare inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak with the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein identifying a set of one or more indicative violations comprises a 95% confidence interval for each of the standardized set of survey questions to compare inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak with the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

13. The method of claim 1 further comprising calculating an overall relative risk by dividing a number of indicative violations experienced by a hypothetical restaurant by the failure rate per question for the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

14. The method of claim 13 further comprising:

associating a higher overall relative risk with a higher number of indicative violations experienced by a hypothetical restaurant; and

associating a lower overall relative risk with a lower number of indicative violations experienced by a hypothetical restaurant.

15. A system comprising:

a database that stores inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak and that stores inspection data from a plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks;

a mapping that relates the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that each experienced an associated foodborne illness outbreak to a standardized set of survey questions and that relates the inspection data from the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks to the standardized set of survey questions; and

at least one processor that identifies a set of one or more indicative violations from among the standardized set of survey questions that were recorded more frequently in the restaurants that experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak than in the restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.

16. The system of claim 15 wherein the inspection data comprises at least one of one of a routine inspection report, a follow-up inspection report, or an investigational inspection report.

17. The system of claim 15 wherein the at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak experienced comprises at least one of a Salmonella, a C. perfringens, or a norovirus outbreak.

18. The system of claim 15 wherein the at least one processor further generates a report recommending at least one of a training procedure, a food preparation product, a cleaning product, a hand washing product, or a personal hygiene product based on the indicative violations.

19. The system of claim 15 wherein the processor further identifies the set of one or more indicative violations by identifying at least one of the standardized set of survey questions related to a contamination factor, a proliferation factors, or a survival factor.

20. The system of claim 15 wherein the processor further determines a relative risk for each of the standardized set of survey questions based a failure rate per question for the plurality of restaurants that each experienced at least one associated foodborne illness outbreak by a failure rate per question for the plurality of restaurants that did not experience any foodborne illness outbreaks.