FHRS Case Study: Wales 2
This mini report presents findings from one of 8 local authority case studies
developed for the stage 2 process evaluation of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme
(FHRS) and the Food Hygiene Information Scheme (FHIS). The report provides
evidence from discussions with a local authority food safety officer, food business
operators and consumers. The 8 case studies are aggregated within the main report
of process evaluation findings, which included additional data sources, and are
intended to provide snapshot illustrations of how the schemes were perceived and
experienced by individuals within a local context.
Summary
At the time of research, this rural Welsh local authority had been operating the
FHRS for approximately two years. The scheme had been incorporated into the
regular inspection programme but workloads have increased due to extra
administration, extra time for inspections and greater care scoring and
discussing ratings within the team. It was felt there were inconsistencies across
local authorities in scoring FHRS ratings. Food business use of the safeguard
measures was also adding strain to staff resource.
The local authority food safety officer reported positive changes in FHRS ratings
(at all levels) and improvements across all types of food establishments since
the start of the scheme. However, it was felt there were some problem food
businesses that did not take the FHRS ratings seriously.
Food business operators who took part in the research were generally
supportive of the scheme. Those with low ratings were mainly frustrated about
being downgraded for incomplete documentation of food safety systems. It was
felt that more needed to be done to help customers understand what the
different ratings mean, given that display of ratings was going to be compulsory.
This was borne out of the concern that a low rating does not equate to unsafe
kitchen practices.
Consumers were very positive about receiving food hygiene information in a
uniform format. Food hygiene was not considered to be a key factor when
making decisions about eating outside the home, but a lack of cleanliness
(through visual cues) would deter people. In terms of FHRS ratings, people said
they would apply the ratings more flexibly when considering a regular eating
place but would expect higher standards of hygiene when paying more for a
meal or when choosing between unfamiliar eating establishments.
1
The local authority context
The local authority in a rural location is characterised by a higher standard of living
relative to other areas in Wales – with lower rates of unemployment and deprivation
– and a homogenous white ethnic population. The main industries are agriculture
and tourism.
The local authority did not have a local food hygiene scheme in place before the FHRS
was launched in spring 2011. According to December 2012 ratings data, one in four
(24%) food businesses in the area had been given an FHRS rating or 0, 1 or 2.
Research sample
One local authority food safety officer was interviewed by telephone in March 2013.
The officer worked in a team of 12 inspectors who covered over 1500 food
businesses within scope of the FHRS. The officer also supplied information about
the area chosen for research with the other stakeholder groups.
A small town was selected for fieldwork with food businesses and consumers.
Commerce was located primarily on three main roads in the town centre and
consisted of a mix of retail, service and food premises. There were no empty shops.
Only FHRS stickers with 4 or 5 ratings were visible from outside of premises.
Fieldwork with food business took place over two weekdays in June 2013. Nine food
business operators took part in the interviews which took place on their premises
during business hours. The study aimed to collect the perspectives of mainly low
rated food businesses: four proprietors had been given an FHRS rating of less than
‘3’ while a further three had received a ‘3’. The sample comprised a range of
business types: hotel restaurant, café, grocery shop, pub, butcher, bed & breakfast.
All were independently run businesses.
Seven people took part in the focus group – 4 females and 3 males – which was
hosted in a local hotel conference room. The focus group was conducted on a
weekday evening in June 2013. Participants had been selected to ensure awareness
of the FHRS and interest in new eating experiences and/or concern for food hygiene.
In the screening exercise, all reported they had seen FHRS stickers displayed on
food premises but only one participant had previously used the ratings website.
Local authority viewpoint
The local authority officer said the FHRS was working ‘fine’ and reported
improvements in food hygiene standards across a wide spectrum of food
businesses. There had been positive changes in FHRS ratings (at all levels). There
was no perceived pattern in terms of types of food businesses with lower ratings, i.e.,
takeaways can range from 0 to 5. However, the respondent added that FHRS ratings
2
were expected to go down due to the stringency of the E. coli cross-contamination
guidance.
Operations
The local authority used a gradual approach to roll out. They prioritised high risk
businesses and, at the time of interview, had completed physical inspections for all
businesses in risk categories A through D.1 An alternative enforcement procedure
(food safety newsletter) had been applied to those with an E risk rating.
Changes attributed to the FHRS
The respondent felt the scheme had increased the team’s workload. Inspections
tended to take longer and were more detailed with officers taking them ‘to the letter’
to fit the Brand Standard and to ensure they have adequate evidence to justify
ratings. There was also a higher volume of paperwork.
The local authority officer noted that more time was devoted to explaining scores to
poor performing food businesses. Some proprietors were more appreciative of these
discussions than others. This reflected in relationships. For example, the respondent
explained that some businesses were very surprised to get a poor rating and would
complain, ‘You've been coming here for years and we didn't realise this is what you
thought about our business’. On the other hand, other poor performing businesses
were positive about the scheme and acted on the advice.
Rating consistency, training and guidance
The food safety team had worked hard to establish and maintain consistency in
FHRS ratings. The respondent was confident that officers were reliably scoring the
criteria,
‘I’m quite happy that the officers in the team are consistent … Where the
scoring is tricky for want of a better word, or you think that the conditions that
you’ve found kind of fall in between two scores, there’s a lot of discussion in
the office about scoring premises and making sure that it’s accurate.’
FSA training, team discussions, inspection scenarios and exercises have been used
to achieve this. Internal team work with practice scenarios (using the trickier food
businesses) were viewed to be the most effective.
However, the respondent noted there were still differences between local authorities
regarding the volume of low rated premises and felt this reflected the different
scoring approaches. It was felt that more consistency training/exercises were
needed including shadowing officers in different local authorities.
1
The frequency of food hygiene interventions is determined by the assessed risk of food premises,
assigned as categories A through E, with A being the highest risk.
3
The local authority had not produced any separate FHRS materials for the team.
They refer to the Brand Standard which was considered adequate.
Safeguard measures
The team have had experience of all safeguard measures, with the exception of
formal complaints. Requests for re-inspection were the most frequent and these
tended to come from food businesses with a rating of ‘3’ or lower.2 The safeguard
measures were straining team resources yet it was also noted that efforts were
paying off as ratings were increasing.
During an inspection visit, it was reported that officers provide food business
operators with a leaflet on the scheme and their rights to safeguard measures.
Officers do not inform the proprietor about the rating they will be given until after the
scores have been processed at the office. However, for those food businesses that
will be given a low rating, officers would pre-warn them so that ‘people are less
shocked when they get the letter in the post’. It was felt this helped to reduce the rate
of appeals.
The respondent felt that the FSA should reconsider plans to post inspection reports
on the internet because there was concern that this would increase food business
formal requests and consequently, officer workloads.
Views on food business engagement
The local authority officer observed that food business operators were becoming
increasingly aware of the importance of food hygiene standards. Some realise they
can use the FHRS rating to their advantage in promoting their business. Within the
local authority there were some problem food businesses that did not take the
hygiene ratings seriously and the officer felt that the scheme was helping to expose
those that ‘aren’t pulling their weight as much’.
The local authority has used FSA funding to address food safety management
systems (Article 5 compliance) among food businesses with a 0 or 1 rating. These
businesses received the Safer Food Better Business pack and were invited to attend
a seminar facilitated by a food safety consultant. The respondent did not comment
on how effective these sessions have been.
Display of ratings
It was felt that food businesses with a ‘4’ or ‘5’ rating were more amenable to
displaying a sticker or certificate. For these businesses, the FHRS was a positive
way to communicate good hygiene standards to customers. It was also viewed as
adding a competitive edge to businesses as those that did not display their rating
2
The respondent said he has personally dealt with about 10 requests for re-inspection and
approximately 5 appeals each year since the start of FHRS. He could not speculate on these
quantities for other members of the team.
4
were increasingly viewed with suspicion by other food businesses and by the public.
For this reason it was considered simpler to encourage the higher rated businesses
to display their ratings. The local authority officers generally promoted display among
the 0-2 rated businesses with the warning that they would be required to display their
rating in the near future.
The respondent was adamant that mandatory display would help drive up food
hygiene standards by forcing 0-2 rated businesses to take the FHRS more seriously.
However, the knock on effect will be an increased workload for the food safety team
as it was expected that mandatory display would lead to more use of the safeguard
measures among food business.
Scheme publicity
Most promotional activities took place during the launch of the scheme. Since then
food businesses have received a letter informing them about the legal requirement to
display FHRS ratings from November 2013. The scheme has also been mentioned
in the local authority newsletter and the county newspaper. The respondent could
not recall details and could not comment on the effectiveness of these
communications.
Food businesses
The FHRS was generally well received by food business operators who considered
that a system was needed to ensure that businesses are following proper hygiene
controls. For example, proprietors mentioned that the scheme keeps businesses 'on
the ball' and the incremental ratings provide a structure for businesses to strive
toward.
An owner of a fish ‘n chip takeaway (rated 3) questioned the relevance of the FHRS
for a small town. It was felt that the scheme may be needed in cities and big towns
where there are more people from outside the area. But small towns rely on regular
customers who come back for the good quality food (and do not base food purchase
decisions on food hygiene information).
Views on ratings received
Food businesses with 4 and 5 ratings were generally satisfied with their
achievements, while those with lower ratings were not happy with the outcome.
These respondents were generally frustrated with the requirements for documenting
food safety systems (making the FHRS ‘paperwork driven’). For example, one B&B
owner (rated 1) relayed his disappointment,
‘The rating was solely based on the fact that we hadn’t completed the
paperwork … it had nothing to do with the cleanliness, the storage, or
anything else which obviously is disappointing.’
5
Proprietors were also concerned about the potential interpretation of ratings, pointing
out that the same rating could mean weaknesses in different areas of noncompliance, i.e., poor documentation in one business while the other could have
cleaning issues. There was also concern that customers might equate a high rating
with good quality food.
Barriers to changes
Building regulations, landlord restrictions and limited resources (time, finances) were
the main barriers to changes noted in the sample. In addition, proprietors had to
delay making some repairs until low season. There was also the view that the FHRS
was putting extra pressure on small businesses. For example, the owner of an
independent pub (with a 2 rating) said he and his wife worked 12 hour days and
were struggling to maintain all the requirements under the FHRS, particularly the
requirement to document food safety systems.
Safeguard measures
In the sample, all but one of the respondents with a rating of less than ‘4’ planned to
or had already made a formal request for a re-inspection. Proprietors were motivated
to improve their ratings before display becomes mandatory. One respondent, the
owner of a south Asian grocery shop, was not aware of the safeguard measures and
said he did not wish to ‘disturb’ the council staff.
Display of ratings/results
Food business operators were displaying their 4 and 5 ratings out of pride and as a
way to communicate their good hygiene standards to customers. Various reasons
were provided by those who were not displaying: concern that displaying a low rating
would negatively affect business, dissatisfaction with the rating, and a misplaced
sticker/certificate.
All but one of the respondents was aware that display would become mandatory in
November 2013. The new requirement was broadly supported but food business
operators were concerned about the infrequency of inspections as recent changes
would not be reflected in ratings, a concern for those who believed customers would
start to pay attention to ratings. An alternative view was that display of low ratings
would not affect regular trade but it might deter new customers.
There was also the view that, alongside mandatory display, consumers need to be
better informed to use the FHRS, as relayed by a restaurant manager (rated 4),
‘I think they just need to educate people … it’s all very well saying, “put signs
in the doors and it’s compulsory to put them up on the doors” but ... it needs to
be a bit more clear … to Joe public if they see it’s a nought or a one on the
door, and explaining that it’s below par, you’re instantly going to think it’s got a
6
dirty kitchen. It might have a dirty kitchen, I don’t know, but there are probably
other reasons behind it.’
Awareness of other food business ratings
Two of the respondents had researched the FHRS ratings of other local businesses
and felt that the ratings were increasingly becoming grounds for competition. For
example, a restaurant manager described how a rival supplier pointed out that his
current supplier had a lower rating. In this case the rival business used the FHRS as
a ‘tool’ to attract trade.
The remaining respondents were not aware of other ratings or were only aware of
those on display in local businesses.
Views on FHRS impact
No one in the sample felt that the changes made to improve their hygiene standards
had made an impact on their trade. There were cases where it was felt that kitchen
staff had become more aware of the requirement to document food safety systems.
Those that were displaying their 4/5 ratings said that no customers had commented
on them to date.
Concerns and suggestions for improvements
Perceived inconsistencies with the FHRS were a concern. Food business operators
had noted ratings could differ from one inspection to another due to different food
safety officers (who focused on different areas when requesting changes) or if
inspections took place at different times of the year (low and high season). They also
felt that assessing different types of food businesses under the one rating system
was unfair and did not recognise that obtaining a 5 rating was easier for certain
businesses than others.
It was felt that the local authority should communicate changes in food safety
guidance to 'the coal face' well ahead of inspections so food business operators
have a chance to make changes and avoid downgrading.
It was also unclear to food businesses on what criteria the frequency of inspections
was based. Every two years was considered too long a gap to provide an accurate
representation of current hygiene standards.
Consumers
Role of food hygiene when eating out
People in the focus group said that they take hygiene into consideration when
purchasing food and eating outside the home. As one female pointed out, 'when
somebody is touching your food, they need to be of a higher standard' because it is
7
out of your control. With the knowledge that food hygiene is regulated in public
eating places, people said they expect kitchens to be clean, especially franchises –
which follow uniform procedures.
Still participants said they wanted to judge the cleanliness of the premises
themselves, relying on mainly visual cues to see 'with your eyes the presentation,
how fresh the food is and how clean the establishment is.' Internet and other media
reviews were consulted but it was pointed out that these appraisals could be out of
date so personal observations were still important. Some people mentioned they
used Facebook and TripAdvisor and noted that bad reviews 'spread like wild fire' so
you can avoid a place where someone has had a bad experience (with cleanliness
or otherwise).
Experience of FHRS
All participants were aware of the FHRS, albeit to varying degrees. All became
aware through stickers on display in various types of establishments (grocery,
restaurant, pub, hotel, cafe, takeaways). Additionally, one female had seen a
television programme that discussed the scheme. People were aware of a certain
pub chain that had received a 5 rating across the franchise. One person searched
the FSA ratings website when considering a restaurant to take his mother to,
‘I’ve looked on the sites. My mother lives in [town] and it was one of the worst
for zero ratings ... I was very careful when I took her out.’ (male, age 50-64)
Applying FHRS ratings
Hypothetically, if ratings were displayed more widely, people said they would be
useful for comparing food businesses. As one person stated,
'I think if you're going on a day out, somewhere that you don't know, there are
three shops in a row and one has got a 5 and the other has a 3, you're going
to go to the 5.' (female, age 50-64)
There was also a general consensus that people would be sceptical if a food
business was not displaying a rating when others were. It would be assumed that
this business had a low rating.
People were generally not willing to approach a business about its FHRS rating,
mainly because they were not confident about their knowledge of the scheme or they
questioned how willing the proprietor would be to divulge the information. The FSA
ratings website was mentioned as an alternative source for this information.
Minimum standards
On the whole, all participants, except one, were happy to designate ‘3’ as the
minimum acceptable FHRS rating for a food business. These people were deterred
by ‘improvement necessary’ in the descriptions of the lower ratings. No one would
8
consider a zero rated business under any circumstances and it was felt these
premises should be shut down until changes were made. Additionally, a male
participant was aware of a friend who had food poisoning so would not consider any
business rated below 2.
One female said she would not want to go lower than a ‘4’ rating. She explained this
was based on television programmes that show what can happen in a restaurant
kitchen. For this reason she felt safer with a ‘4’ rating.
Ratings in different circumstances
When discussing different eating situations, it was evident that the focus group
participants varied their food purchasing criteria under different circumstances. Price,
food quality, convenience and reputation were important alongside food hygiene.
Generally people wanted a higher FHRS rated establishment for a special occasion
or expensive restaurant and they were willing to relax their standards for a place they
knew well and liked. However, the one female participant stood her ground and
would not accept a rating lower than ‘4’ under any of the alternative scenarios.
Regular eating places and certain ‘unhealthy’ establishments seemed to be given the
benefit of the doubt in terms of food hygiene. Two males said they were willing to
purchase food from a place rated ‘1’ or ‘2’ if it sold ‘cheap’ food or if ‘it was a clean
looking burger van’. Others said they would want to know why a familiar eating place
was given a ‘2’ rating, for example, especially if the reason may have more to do with
decorating than about food preparation. With this extra knowledge they would decide
whether or not to continue to purchase food there.
High end establishments and unfamiliar places would be scrutinised more closely
before making a decision. People mentioned they sought more information on these
occasions, either by recommendation or through searching reviews. Those who
would accept a ‘2’ rating for a familiar place which they liked said they would stick to
their minimum rating of ‘3’ when considering unfamiliar establishments.
The composition of the eating party did not seem to make a difference to people’s
views on the level of FHRS rating that would apply to different eating situations.
Feedback and suggestions for improvements
Focus group participants supported the scheme and considered it to be a good idea.
A high rating provided assurance that the food business is a safe place to eat,
'there's no way of telling what the kitchen is like, so that rating is important'. To help
increase public use of the FHRS, it was felt that the scheme needed to be publicised
more widely (radio and television) and that display of ratings should be compulsory.
It was reasoned that mandatory display would force the low rated businesses to
improve their hygiene standards because higher ratings will attract patrons.
9
There was concern about the frequency of inspections and it was assumed that
these were undertaken at least annually to ensure an up-to-date reflection of
practices. People also wanted to know how soon after the requested changes were
made that the food business is re-inspected (to reflect these improvements). It was
generally felt that two year old inspections were not sufficient to maintain public
confidence in the system.
It was felt that more information about the composition of individual food business
ratings should be available on both the internet and through a free help-line (for noninternet users). People also wanted a means for consumers to feed back on the
scheme and to inform the FSA/council about a bad food hygiene experience.
10