12 replies to this topic

[TatianaLC]

Dear all,

does anyone have full hazard analysis and assessment of associated risks of hand hygiene? This refers to IFS point 3.4.9

Kind regards,

Tatjana

[Charles.C]

Dear all,

does anyone have full hazard analysis and assessment of associated risks of hand hygiene? This refers to IFS point 3.4.9

Kind regards,

Tatjana

Dear Tatiana,

I apologise for not having a copy of the IFS standard within reach to view 3.4.9 however in every other FS standard which i can recall mentioning this issue, it is invariably categorised as a "prerequisite", ie not directly included within the process hazard analysis. Or are you talking about validation ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[TatianaLC]

Hello,"3.4.9 Based on hazard analysis and assessment of associated risks, there shall be a program to control effectiveness of hand hygiene."

In new version 6 IFS is a lot of time mentioned "based on HA and assessment of associated risks". Is enough that I mention this in process steps receving, production, packaging...) and document procedures or do I have to write down another HACCP, concentrated just on hands in different steps - B hazard?

What if employees weare gloves? Do I have to take swabs from gloves, gloves and hands, hands? Even if they weare gloves they have to wash hands, they have instructions how and when to wash hands, they were trained...So do I need to wrtie down in tabel HA and assessment?

regards,

tatjana

[Charles.C]

Dear Tatiana,

I am not a IFS user myself and unfortunately I think there are not many on this forum.

I hv had a look at IFS6 and 5 documentation. IFS have obviously had difficulties with translation to English language plus subsequent intended interpretations. Seems to be some confusion in various sub-sections over risk analysis / hazard analysis / required scope thereof.

I can only suggest you follow the same response format (??) as you used in ver5 to respond to similar worded texts in 3.4.5 and 3.4.8 . I noticed the provided auditor guideline for 3.4.5 seemed to considerably simplify the expected result in comparison to the original heavyweight requirements, ie no mention of HACCP.

I also noticed the IFS document / amendment clarification for ver5 (3.4.5 and 3.4.8) contained –

Clarification
This hazard analysis shall be understandable by the auditors. This can be done in written format e.g. within the HACCP-hazard analysis concerning e.g. personal hygiene, cleaning and disinfection etc. but also in the form of other evidences which shall be clear for the auditors.

Most people document hygiene related functions within the HACCP system but separately to the main haccp plan as SSOPs, or prerequisites, whatever and then cross-link. I suspect this is the intention mentioned in later part of clarification above.
However you may have already used a different format which may be easier to continue with.

Any users of IFS here ??

Rgds / Charles.C

[tarek12]

I have an example in French
you can translate it if you want
bye

[tarek12]

this the file

Attached Files

•  01 Evaluation des risques hygiène du personnel.doc   151.5KB   299 downloads

[Charles.C]

this the file

Dear Tarek,

Thks for the interesting document. Nice "Description".

It is curious that the risk from poor hygiene specifically due to the Production Manager is evaluated but not, as far i can see, the QA Manager (presumably the document's author?).

I'm not a user of IFS so i may be misunderstanding the content but it seems that the standard's originators are unaware of the HACCP concept of SOPs, SSOPs, PRPs etc. These were specifically introduced to simplify the documentation of hazards such as presently discussed.

Maybe this part of the standard has not been updated in last 20yrs or so ?.

Thanks again.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles Chew]

Hi All,

The application of HA in this case is referred to the suitability of design and adequacy in quantity and locations rather than as a process control measure.

[Charles.C]

Hi All,

The application of HA in this case is referred to the suitability of design and adequacy in quantity and locations rather than as a process control measure.

Thanks Charles(1), that sounds to have a logical basis even if rather empirical to estimate, just like toilets.

It seems to me that the risk assessment could logically also be further extended. eg -

Should the handwashing procedure (and the micro. swab standard?) for workers entering a production zone for RTE material be more rigorous than for non-RTE output, or, say, a store worker (assuming [perhaps?] that none wear gloves)?

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

Should the handwashing procedure (and the micro. swab standard?) for workers entering a production zone for RTE material be more rigorous than for non-RTE output, or, say, a store worker (assuming [perhaps?] that none wear gloves)?

Rgds / Charles.C

 

There are additional requirements for areas where highly perishable food products are handled in 3.4.8. but I agree areas of work and types of product will influence any assessment of the level of control required.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[monkeyman]

Just following up on this post our IFS auditor required us to swab hands to "control the effectiveness" of handwashing. Our Micro lab recommended we check for Coagulase +ve stapholococcus and Enterobacteriaceae. We test approc 10cm2 of hand, including betreen fingers and have set a limit of <10cfu/swab on both these.

We have had some swabs back with higher Enterobacteriaceae and I was just wondering is this limit too low? Does anyone one have references to acceptable limits?

[Charles.C]

Just following up on this post our IFS auditor required us to swab hands to "control the effectiveness" of handwashing. Our Micro lab recommended we check for Coagulase +ve stapholococcus and Enterobacteriaceae. We test approc 10cm2 of hand, including betreen fingers and have set a limit of <10cfu/swab on both these.

We have had some swabs back with higher Enterobacteriaceae and I was just wondering is this limit too low? Does anyone one have references to acceptable limits?

 

Dear monkeyman,

 

Hands tend to get categorised in with food contact surfaces although the logic is questionable.

 

Can try this - 

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ces/#entry60958

 

For certain products, eg UK RTE chilled foods, from memory, the  limit for S.aureus suggested by one authoritative source is  zero (nil detection) if repeated detections are involved.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[monkeyman]

Thanks for that information Charles, I should have looked harder.

I must correct my initial info by saying it is 100cm2 swabbing area (10x10=100!).

As you show there is plenty of information and your summary is brilliant but these seems no agreement. 

I am going to ask our local EHO if they have any set tolerance and will let you know the outcome.