We calculate the SmileSafe rating by using a scheme set out in Annex 5 of the Food Law Code of Practice (England). Annex 5 sets out how food authorities should set the frequency of food inspections according to the type of establishment and the food safety standards found.

 

Specifically, we use Part 2 and Part 3 of Annex 5 which are scores that are given to the establishment for level of current compliance and confidence in management/control systems. Three scores are given by the officer under these two parts:

 

 

The score should reflect compliance observed during the inspection according to the guidance set out below. Adherence to any relevant UK or EU Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice should be considered when assessing compliance.

 

Conformity with relevant national guidelines or industry codes of recommended practice will also be necessary to score 0 or 5.

 

25 - Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.

 

20 - General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards generally low.

 

15 - Some major non-compliance with statutory obligations – more effort required to prevent fall in standards.

 

10 - Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes

of recommended practice. Standards are being maintained or improved.

 

5 - High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice, minor contraventions of food hygiene regulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.

 

0 - High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice; conforms to accepted good practices in the trade.

 

 

The score should reflect compliance observed during the inspection according to the guidance set out below. Adherence to any relevant UK or EU Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice should be considered when assessing compliance.

 

Conformity with relevant national guidelines or industry codes of recommended practice will also be necessary to score 0 or 5.

 

25 - Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.

 

20 - General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards generally low.

 

15 - Some major non-compliance with statutory obligations – more effort required to prevent fall in standards.

 

10 - Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice. Standards are being maintained or improved.

 

5 - High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice, minor contraventions of food hygiene regulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.

 

0 - High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice; conforms to accepted good practices in the trade.

 

  

The actual performance of management is scored on the basis of the results achieved and observed. A management that achieves good food hygiene performance, well understood by the workforce, should have achieved a good standard in Parts 1 and 2 above, and consequently a low score for that factor.

 

Confidence in Management is not meant to reconsider this aspect. It is to elicit a judgement on the likelihood of satisfactory compliance being maintained in the future.

 

Factors that will influence the inspector's judgement include:

 

• The "track record" of the company, its willingness to act on previous advice and enforcement, and the complaint history;

 

• The attitude of the present management towards hygiene and food safety;

 

• Hygiene and food safety technical knowledge available to the company (internal or external), including hazard analysis/HACCP and the control of critical points;

 

• Satisfactory documented procedures and HACCP based food safety management systems.

 

 

30 - Poor track record of compliance. Little or no technical knowledge. Little or no appreciation of hazards or quality control. No food safety management system.

 

20 - Varying record of compliance. Poor appreciation of hazards and control measures. No food safety management system.

 

10 - Satisfactory record of compliance. Access to and use of technical advice either in-house, from trade associations and/or from Guides to Good Practice. Understanding of significant hazards and control measures in place. Making satisfactory progress towards a documented food safety management system / procedures commensurate with type of business.

 

5 - Reasonable record of compliance. Technical advice available inhouse or access to and use of technical advice from trade associations and/or from Guides to Good Practice. Have satisfactory documented procedures and systems. Able to demonstrate effective control of hazards. Will have satisfactory documented food safety management system. Audit by Food Authority confirms general compliance with documented system.

 

0 - Good record of compliance. Access to technical advice within organisation. Will have satisfactory documented HACCP based food safety management system which may be subject to external audit process. Audit by Food Authority confirms compliance with documented management system with few/minor non-conformities not identified in the system as critical control points.

 

 

 

Once scores are decided, the ratings are calculated as follows:

 

 

We then use the poorest of the three scores to determine the SmileSafe rating.