An examination of remote audits in England has revealed a range of perspectives from local authorities on their efficacy and feasibility. The assessment focused on remote inspections within the context of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) re-rating inspections in England, which were made possible under the Food Standard Agency’s (FSA) COVID-19 recovery plan.
The study discovered that while there is potential for remote assessments, it should be encouraged in tandem with hybrid methodologies and extended to encompass the entirety of the FHRS rating process. The findings are expected to contribute to the FSA’s ongoing modernization efforts concerning official food hygiene controls.
Limited Utilization of Remote Assessment
Twenty local authorities participated in the study, comprising 14 that had never employed remote assessment for a hygiene re-rating, four that had previously utilized it, and two that were currently employing it at the time of the investigation. Interviews with ten food businesses of varying sizes were also conducted, with eight having no prior experience with remote assessments for food hygiene re-ratings, and two having received them.
Notably, the study did not provide a specific definition of remote assessment, leading to uncertainty among local authorities regarding the concept. The report revealed that two local authorities had employed remote assessment for ratings, contrary to FSA guidance. Additionally, some authorities incorrectly believed that a hygiene re-rating remote assessment must still be followed by an in-person visit before issuing a rating.
Mixed Views on Remote Assessment
Reactions to remote assessment were mixed among local authorities. Those who had not previously used it expressed disinterest in adopting it in the future, mainly due to the limited number of re-rating requests, making it unlikely to affect their resource allocation. In contrast, most respondents with experience of remote assessment either expressed willingness to use it again or continued to employ it.
However, the study found that using remote assessment for conducting re-ratings entirely remotely was uncommon. This was primarily due to the low number of eligible requests received by local authorities. Data from the FSA indicated that only 63 out of 304 local authorities had utilized remote assessment for an FHRS re-inspection. Instead, participants often adopted hybrid approaches, incorporating digital tools for data collection alongside in-person inspections.
Identified Advantages and Disadvantages
Remote assessments were deemed suitable for highly compliant establishments with a history of favorable scores, lower-risk businesses like home bakers, and cases involving structural or document-related non-compliances. While food businesses were generally open to the concept of remote assessment, they emphasized the need for consistent and clear guidance to ensure high-quality outcomes.
The benefits of remote assessments included savings in staff travel time and reduced costs. However, drawbacks were noted, including occasional extended durations compared to in-person visits and perceived reduced validity due to the absence of sensory elements and the scheduled nature of remote assessments, which eliminated the element of surprise.
External challenges encompassed unsuitability of some businesses for remote assessments, technological limitations, language and communication barriers, unfamiliarity with the remote assessment process, and concerns about privacy and data security. Several authorities highlighted that businesses expected value for money and were reluctant to pay the same amount for a remote assessment as they would for an in-person inspection.
Barriers to Implementation
Internal obstacles to adopting technology for remote assessments included difficulties in securing support from environmental health officers, inadequate guidance from the FSA, technological limitations, and uncertainty about the appropriate fees that businesses should pay for remote ratings.
To promote future utilization of remote assessment, respondents called for clear communication from the FSA to local authorities and businesses to underscore their support for such practices. They also advocated for increased flexibility for councils to choose scenarios in which they could opt for remote or hybrid approaches.
