Improved Food Inspection Model
Revised Draft

8.0 System performance and continuous improvement

• Introduction
• 8.1 Framework for the assessment of system performance
• 8.2 Evaluation methodology

Introduction

Mitigating risks to food safety is the CFIA's highest priority, and the health and safety of Canadians is the driving force behind the design and development of CFIA programs. Using system performance methodology that supports a philosophy of continuous improvement, measuring outcomes should deliver findings that the CFIA and regulated parties can use to adapt, improve, and become more effective at managing risks to food safety. In general, system performance is about assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the food inspection system against key outcomes.

As part of inspection modernization, the CFIA proposes to introduce a more systematic way of monitoring and evaluating overall effectiveness of the food safety system. As part of the approach, the CFIA would measure how well the single food program design, inspection activities, business processes, and services contribute to the higher level outcome of mitigating risks and protecting the health and safety of Canadians from preventable health risks. To perform the assessment, the CFIA would conduct environmental scans, evaluate field inspections, review inspection and surveillance data, and complete trend analyses on an annual basis.

The objective would be to

• assess the overall effectiveness of the food inspection system
• assess whether the inspection program is delivered as designed, and is delivered consistently, effectively and efficiently
• identify emerging risks
• identify gaps
• identify areas for improvement

The results of the performance evaluation could also be used by the CFIA for

• corporate reporting
• benchmarking over time
• international comparative analysis
• continuous improvement to program design, training, and inspection delivery
• adjusting work plans

To objectively measure how successfully a program has been in achieving its stated objectives, goals, and planned program activities, there must be clear and strong relationships to activities and outputs and in turn a clear and strong relationship between the outputs and the ultimate outcomes.

To build its approach to measuring system performance, the CFIA will develop a logic model to map out the logical relationships between the inputs (the resources), the activities, the outputs and the outcomes.

A logic model is a systematic and visual way to present the relationships among the resources the CFIA has to operate the program, the activities the CFIA plans to do (business processes and services that produce outputs), and the results the CFIA hopes to achieve in terms of immediate results (outputs) and outcomes.

Click on image for larger view

Description for logic model

Diagram 8.0 is a logic model that visually presents the relationships among

• the resources that the CFIA has to operate the program,
• the activities that the CFIA plans to do, and
• the results that the CFIA hopes to achieve in terms of immediate results and outcomes.

The logic model flows from left to right. The first two elements comprise the planned sequence of activities to bring about the intended results. The last three elements comprise the intended results. The logic model includes

• resources/inputs, with an arrow pointing to
• activities, with an arrow pointing to
• outputs, with an arrow pointing to
• outcomes, with an arrow pointing to
• impact

From the logic model, the CFIA can develop key performance indicators to check whether policies, procedures and practices that are critical for food safety are successful in achieving the desired results. A key performance indicator is a selected indicator that is considered key for monitoring the performance of a strategic objective, outcome, or key result area important to the success of an activity.

Measuring performance is a CFIA responsibility. Performance indicators and targets are currently being developed to support effective performance reviews. Some preliminary key performance indicators have been included in Annex E.

8.1 Framework for the assessment of system performance

Two levels of assessment are required to ensure that system performance objectives are met. Based on the information obtained at each level, a comprehensive analysis would be conducted and systemic improvements would be scheduled and implemented through the work planning process. Higher-priority improvements should be scheduled sooner, when required.

The two levels of assessment are as follows:

Level 1:

Consistency and quality of delivery: Internal audit

Objective: To measure the consistency and quality of the delivery of the inspection program. For example:

• Are work plans delivered?
• Are service standards met?
• Are inspection steps followed?
• Are inspection forms complete and accurate?
• Are decisions consistent?

Level 2:

Program design

Objective: To assess that the program is designed appropriately and is meeting food safety and regulatory objectives. For example:

• Is there an effective regulatory framework?
• Are policies clear, complete and current?
• Does the program include appropriate tools and supporting processes, including effective training?
• Does the program support innovation?
• Are the outcomes clear and achievable for industry and inspectors?
• Is compliance achieved?
• How effectively does the system meet the CFIA’s objectives?
• Is the system accepted internationally?
• What is the compliance profile and trend of the industry?

8.2 Evaluation methodology

a. Review of inspection data

Targets for file and on-site reviews would be established as part of the work planning process.

b. Field observation

Specialized teams, composed of CFIA employees, would

• conduct inspections for system performance, including effectiveness and quality of service delivery
• use data to identify gaps and issues to facilitate continuous improvement

An on-site review would be conducted to evaluate delivery of inspection activities, with attention to

• national consistency
• the level of understanding of responsibilities
• appropriate identification of non-compliance

As per the work plan, a field observation would be conducted, using an overlapping oversight approach that involves local and national perspectives.

c. Internal and external surveys

Surveys would be conducted on an annual basis to seek input from staff and regulated parties on the function and quality of the system and the tools provided and to seek suggestions for improvement.

Next Page: 9.0  | Previous: 7.0