EH Knowledge Management Steering Committee Meeting by xiw67167

VIEWS: 51 PAGES: 40

									Supporting Document 5


                              EH Knowledge Management Project
    Joint Steering Committee and Working Group (Food Program) Meeting
                                        Meeting Notes
                                    Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Present:
Working Group Members: Ben Miller, Colleen Paulus, Dawn Beck, Donald Cheney, Donna
O’Connor, Lynn Moore, Mark Clary (MEHA), Mary Woodford, Pam Steinbach, Serena Vergin,
Tony Georgeson
Steering Committee Members: Angie Wheeler (MEHA), Jill Bruns (LPHA), Lars Johnson,
Laura Scheinoha, Pat Henton, Spencer Pierce, Susan Palchick, Zack Hansen, Dan Symonik, John
Stine, Steve Ring
MDH Staff: Duane Wiste, Jennifer Miller, Mary Kundsen, Mike Kaluzniak, Pat Cook
Guests: Chris Forslund (MEHA), Jerry Smith (MDH, EHD – DWP Section, NPWS Unit)


    1. Greetings and updates

Greetings:

John Stine (JS) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, including guests Chris Forslund and
Jerry Smith. He thanked everyone who volunteered to participate in this project, and then asked
everyone present to introduce themselves.

Following introductions, JS gave a brief overview of the EHKMP, discussed the goal of the
project, and talked about the accomplishments made by the Steering Committee thus far (JS had
Steering Committee members identify themselves by a show of hands). JS discussed the process
that the Steering Committee went through in selecting the food program as the first program to
be taken on by the EHKMP. He concluded by discussing the relationship of the EHKMP with
other “information management endeavors” and by highlighting the expected benefits of the
project (critical EH information will be captured; EH partners will be able to work
collaboratively with access to shared knowledge; surveillance systems will be strengthened
through the effective management and monitoring of captured data streams; and, EH information
will be readily available to share with regulated parties and the public).

Updates:

•   John Stine (JS) reported that the MN-PHIN Steering Committee (which John serves on)
    would be meeting on June 1, 2006, and that the sponsorship of projects (and what that will
    entail) will be one of the topics of discussion during that meeting.
•   Jennifer Miller (JM) reported that on May 25, 2006 she attended a “Garrison’s Users Group
    Meeting” that was convened by Olmsted County. During the meeting, JM gave a brief
    overview of the EHKMP. She talked about the “state-wide” nature of the EHKMP, the
    emphasis being given to first figuring out what EH information should be collected and
    shared, and the desire to promote interoperability so as to facilitate the collection and sharing
    of information on a state-wide basis. Together with Bill Kass, she spoke of the value of the
    EHKMP staying connected to the work being done by the Garrison’s Users Group. Laura
    Scheinoha who is a member of the Garrision’s Users Group (as well as a member of the

Minnesota Department of Health                                                              Page SD5-1
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                    September 2007: Version 2007.9
   EHKMP Steering Committee), was in attendance at the meeting, and agreed to serve as a
   liaison to the EHKMP.

   2. Discussion of roles and responsibilities

JS began the discussion by recommending that the Working Group be chaired by Colleen Paulus,
(Manager, Environmental Health Services, MDH, EHD); JS then invited any feedback regarding
his recommendation. JS then turned the meeting over to Colleen Paulus (CP) to Chair, as he had
another meeting to attend.

CP asked for volunteers from the Steering Committee to describe the role they had played to date
in shaping the EHKMP. Dan Symonik used the phrase “evolving process” to describe how the
Steering Committee had gotten to the point we are at today. Initially people wanted to think
about technologies for information collection and sharing, but the decision was made fairly early
on to take a step back and decide upon goals for information collection and sharing. Jill Bruns
added to this by saying that identification of data elements to be collected and shared was what
was of main interest, not software solutions for collecting and sharing information.

There was then a brief discussion of how the Steering Committee came to the decision to start
the project off by focusing on the food program (initially, thought was given to tackling three EH
programs at once, but as the Steering Committees’ understanding of the complexity of tasks at
hand grew, they decided to begin with only one program … and the food program was given the
highest priority by the Steering Committee).

CP moved the discussion to the roles and responsibilities of the Working Group. She introduced
MDH staff who will provide support to the Working Group, including:
    Jennifer Miller - will serve as coordinator for the Working Group. Jennifer is with the
      Policy, Planning, and Analysis Unit of MDH’s Environmental Health Division, Division
      Services Section, and is the Project Manager for the EHKMP.
    Mike Kaluzniak - will serve as a technical advisor from the Partnership and Workforce
      Development Unit of MDH’s Environmental Health Division, Environmental Health
      Services Section.
    Duane Wiste - will serve as a technical advisor from the Information Resource
      Management Unit of MDH’s Environmental Health Division, Division Services Section.

CP asked everyone to take a few moments to review the Working Group membership and charge
document that was distributed prior to the meeting (and that was available as a handout for
today’s meeting). CP briefly reviewed the listing of responsibilities of the Working Group, and
asked for feedback regarding the membership and charge document. Angie Wheeler suggested
that in addition to a Chair, that the Working Group also have a Co-Chair (as is the case with the
Steering Committee); Angie recommended that a non-MDH representative fill this slot. Serena
Vergin (EH Specialist, Countryside PH) volunteered to serve as Co-Chair for the Working
Group. The nominees for Working Group Chair and Co-Chair were approved by a “thumbs-up”
vote.

CP then moved on to discuss a Proposed Project Timeline for completion of tasks assigned to the
Working Group (a Proposed Project Timeline document was distributed for everyone’s review).
Rather than convening the Working Group on several different occasions to tackle their assigned
Minnesota Department of Health                                                           Page SD5-2
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
tasks, the Proposed Project Timeline called for convening the Working Group for two to three
all-day meeting sessions, so that work could be accomplished in a more condensed fashion.

Members of the Working Group generally seemed to prefer the idea of fewer meetings, but asked
to see some additional details of the work products that they would be tasked with completing.

This question moved the discussion on to the next item on the meeting agenda; namely the
review of tasks assigned to the Working Group.

   3. Review tasks assigned to Working Group

JM presented an overview of the approach that the Steering Committee has approved be
followed by the EHKMP Working Groups, and discussed the vision and goals that the Steering
Committee came up with for the food program in relationship to the EHKMP.

JM then discussed the tasks assigned to the Working Group, including:
   1. logic modeling - drafts of logic models (reflecting the three food program goals selected
       by the Steering Committee) will be compiled by MDH staff, and then these drafts will be
       provided to the Working Group for further refinement and development.
   2. data flow diagramming – the logic models developed by the Working Group will be used
       to determine what information needs to be collected and shared in determining progress
       made toward reaching intended outcomes (and goals).
   3. defining of data elements – the data elements that comprise the “information needs”
       identified through the data flow diagramming process will need to be defined and
       described.
   4. the compiling of an “Action Plan” – the action plan will include:
            results of data elements identification / defining efforts (see items 1, 2, and 3
               listed above);
            findings pertaining to options for information sharing; and,
            recommendations / implementation strategies for strategically applying and
               managing food program information so as to enhance the EH services that
               Minnesotans receive.

Examples (using the handwashing campaign that was aimed at increasing by 10% the observed
handwashing rate among users of MN State Fair public restrooms) of a logic model, data flow
diagram, and a data dictionary entry were included in the overview that JM presented. A
handout containing key information from JM’s presentation was distributed to all meeting
participants.

Following a short meeting break, attendees reconvened. CP called members of the Working
Group together to discuss the Working Group process and other information presented thus far in
the meeting. During this time, the Steering Committee gathered to discuss some old business
(the notes from the May 1, 2006 Steering Committee meeting were approved for posting to the
project web site), and to talk about the involvement / support that the Steering Committee would
offer once the Working Group began to tackle the tasks assigned to them. Laura Scheinoha and
Lars Johnson agreed to attend future meetings of the Working Group (as Steering Committee
representatives); other Steering Committee members understood that they were welcome to
attend future meetings of the Working Group as well, but at a minimum, Laura and Lars would
Minnesota Department of Health                                                          Page SD5-3
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
be in attendance. Throughout the tenure of the Working Group, the Steering Committee would
be provide the Working Group with feedback / comments regarding the progress being made on
tasks assigned to the Working Group.

When the Working Group had finished their discussion they asked some additional information
from the Steering Committee.

Q: The Working Group asked if the Steering Committee could provide them with any more
   “specifics” regarding the ideas that they had in mind when they came up with the three goals
   for the food program… to the Working Group, the goals seemed pretty broad in scope.

A: The three goals selected were ones that the Steering Committee felt would be supported via
   improvements in the collection and sharing of information on a statewide basis. They were
   the result of several ‘goal setting exercises’ that the Steering Committee participated in.

   Susan Palchik suggested that all of the ideas that the Steering Committee discussed, and that
   eventually led them to the three goals selected, be shared with the Working Group.

   The Working Group may choose to limit the goals, but the broader that they are able to view
   the goals, the more they may be able to accomplish when it comes to identifying information
   that should be collected and shared on a statewide basis.

Q: The Working Group asked what the role of the Focus Group would be in the process.

A: JM replied that the Focus Group will be asked to provide feedback to the Working Group as
   the logic models are pulled together. Right now our thoughts are that rather than convening
   the persons who have volunteered / been invited to serve on the Focus Group together to
   provide this feedback, that information will be sent to them for their review and comment.
   The feedback received will then be compiled and shared with the Working Group for their
   consideration.

Q: The Working Group asked what would become of the Action Plan for the food program once
   it was endorsed by the Steering Committee.

A: At this point, it is envisioned that the Action Plan for the food program will be shared with
   partners who manage food program information, with the hope being that they will choose to
   incorporate the recommendations and strategies for improving the collection and sharing of
   food program information that are contained in the Action Plan into their own practices.

   Zack Hansen pointed out that once the Action Plan for the food program is endorsed, the
   Steering Committee will be tasked with deciding upon next steps … so more thought will be
   given to the question raised once the Steering Committee reaches that point.

   Steve Ring commented that one hope would be to take all the Action Plans that are
   developed in connection with the EHKMP and see what elements / themes are common
   across the EH programs addressed so that common data elements can be “harmonized”.


Minnesota Department of Health                                                          Page SD5-4
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
   Dan Symonik reminded the group that “perfect can be the enemy of the good”, and that we
   should provide room for flexibility as the EHKMP evolves … he suggested that the Action
   Plan for the food program be viewed as part of the EHKMP process vs. a final product.

   4. Next steps / next convening of Working Group

It was agreed that the MDH EHD should proceed with making arrangements for members of the
Working Group to meet on Thursday, July 13, 2006 from 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. It was also
agreed that arrangements should be made for the Working Group to meet again on Wednesday,
July 19, 2006 from 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. Depending on the amount of work accomplished on
July 13th, the July 19th meeting ‘end time’ may be adjusted.

To Do List

   ♦ JM will take care of making logistical arrangements so that the Working Group may meet
     on July 13, 2006 and on July 19, 2006; arrangements will be shared with all members of
     the Working Group, MDH staff providing the Working Group with support, and Steering
     Committee representatives to the Working Group as soon as possible. The full Steering
     Committee will be notified of these arrangements as well, in case others wish to attend in
     an ex-officio capacity.
   ♦ JM will compile and distribute all of the ‘goal setting’ information that was compiled by
     the Steering Committee, and that eventually led to the three goals that were selected for
     the food program.
   ♦ JM will send out electronic copies of all information distributed during today’s meeting;
     the Proposed Project Timeline will be revised to reflect decisions reached at today’s
     meeting.
   ♦ JM will compile and distribute notes from today’s meeting.
   ♦ Prior to July 13, 2006, members of the Working Group will complete the University of
     Wisconsin’s on-line course entitled “Enhancing Program Performance with Logic
     Models” (link to document is posted on Resources page of the EHKMP web site … see
     http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/local/knowproj/committee/resources.html).
   ♦ Prior to July 13, 2006, members of the Working Group will review materials posted on
     the EHKMP web site; recommended reading (also linked on the Resources page of the
     EHKMP web site) is the Harvard, Kennedy School of Government document entitled
     AGet Results Through Performance Management@.

Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.


Prepared by Jennifer Miller




Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-5
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
                             EH Knowledge Management Project
                       Working Group (Food Program) Meeting
                                        Meeting Notes
                                     Thursday, July 13, 2006
Present:
Working Group Members: Ben Miller, Brent Rossow, Colleen Paulus, Dawn Beck, Lynn
Moore, Mark Clary (MEHA), Mary Woodford, Pam Steinbach, Serena Vergin, Tony Georgeson
Steering Committee Members: Laura Scheinoha, John Stine
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Duane Wiste, Jennifer Miller, Mike Kaluzniak
Guests: Jerry Smith (MDH, EHD – DWP Section, NPWS Unit)


   1. Greetings and introductions

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, and then attendees introduced
themselves.

   2. Commitment to data sharing and change

John Stine began the discussion by talking about the State’s desire to have better access to
knowledge, the commitment to improving the collection and sharing of data, and the need to find
ways through data sharing to articulate what we are doing to protect the public’s health.

Working Group members then went on to discuss what they view as expectations that the public
currently has when it comes to the food safety system, including:
                The public’s desire to know whether or not an inspector would eat at a
                  particular restaurant (felt that this information was of greater interest to the
                  public than having inspection information posted on the web).
                The public’s perception that food safety inspectors know the good vs. bad
                  places to eat.
                The public’s expectation that when their concerns are voiced to us, we take
                  care of their concerns.

The group acknowledged that the public’s expectations of government is changing – in the past,
the public was more likely to just do as they were told, whereas now the public tends to question
everything; hence the desire for information is greater than ever before. The public is not aware
of the different levels of government / different roles of governmental agencies – we should
work toward being a more seamless operation so that the public does not need to worry about the
differences when they are seeking information / answers to their questions.

The discussion of the commitment to improving the collection and sharing of data, and changing
our own tendencies when it comes to the manner in which we carry out our work led into a
discussion of the next agenda item.

   3. “The Business” of the Food Program



Minnesota Department of Health                                                            Page SD5-6
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                  September 2007: Version 2007.9
Two documents were distributed in conjunction with this item on the agenda, including one
entitled “Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Health and Agriculture Regarding Food
Safety” and another entitled “EH Expectations and Responsibilities of all Minnesotans”. The
Working Group discussed the content of each document at length, and then reflected on their
own (state and local government) expectations when it comes to ensuring a successful public
health systems that includes environmental health; the results of the Working Group’s
“brainstorming” of expectations follows.

                                     What are our expectations
        1. We have support (from leadership and each other).
        2. We have resources (from leadership).
        3. We meet the needs of those we serve.
        4. There is a consistent approach to what we do.
        5. There is a means to improving the use of data.
        6. Our regulations are sound and based on science.
        7. The work we are doing is making a difference / impacts public.
        8. We provide a valuable service to community.
        9. Our work is connected to quality of life.
        10. We have higher standards that the average national norms.
        11. Our work in preventing outbreaks is of economic benefit to industry and
            consumers.
        12. The legislature understands the MN food safety system.
        13. Industry will play their role / adopt systems.
        14. Our system is responsive to the needs of all stakeholders (regulated community,
            public needs).
        15. We convey food safety system information and knowledge to industry and the
            public.
        16. Trust exists at all levels.
        17. We have a competent workforce.
        18. Consumers / industry / government will collaborate.
        19. Information is shared with system partners to aid decisions.

   4. Process recap, background information, and questions for discussion

The document entitled “Project Approach: Working Group Products” that was presented during
the joint Steering Committee and Working Group meeting held on May 31, 2006 was
redistributed during today’s meeting. Jennifer Miller (JM) gave a brief recap of the tasks
assigned to the Working Group, including logic modeling, data flow diagramming, and the
creation of a data dictionary, and discussed how the completion of the tasks would contribute to
the development of an Action Plan.

The Working Group then reviewed a document entitled “An Overview of PH Regulatory Tools”.
As was stated in the document, public health has three types of regulatory tools – licensing,
inspection and enforcement. The Working Group discussed the concepts presented in the
document, and then gave their attention to licensing. Questions posed regarding licensing, and
the responses that the Working Group compiled in answer to those questions follow.


Minnesota Department of Health                                                          Page SD5-7
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
                             Why license and share information?
        1. To know who is “in system”, and to get establishments into the system.
        2. So that the public will know whom to contact when there is a problem.
        3. So that we have the ability to identify (track) the “bad apples”.

                                What is the value of licensing?
        1. Enables the ability to educate, promote change, and take legal action when
            necessary.
        2. Provides consumer assurance that establishment is “in system”.
        3. Establishes operator connection to public health.
        4. Licensing serves as an important initial interaction between government and
            operator.
        5. Licensing serves as a contract between government and operator.
        6. Identifies business and responsible party.
        7. For the consumer, a license indicates that a business is legitimate.
        8. For the consumer, a license provides a link to the “nest step up” if they have
            complaints / concerns.
        9. Licensure serves as a basis for all of our other regulatory, educational,
            emergency preparation activities.
        10. Licensure serves as an ultimate leverage point for enforcement.
        11. Licensure serves as an indication that minimum standards are met.

The Working Group then reviewed a document entitled “The Benefits of Environmental Health
Data Sharing”, and identified additional benefits of EH data sharing, including:
    sharing data / information will foster a sense of “united we stand”, and will enhance our
       abilities to work in harmony with one another (sense of cohesion, synergy);
    there will be a greater ability to coordinate efforts, provide mutual aid to one another, and
       assure continuity of operations if we are sharing information with one another;
    sharing information will help us identify best practices or methods;
    will help when it comes to the setting of priorities for education / focus; and,
    will demonstrate value, accountability to public, regulated parties, and to other
       sanitarians.

   5. Applying the process - practicing with licensing

The Working Group then reviewed / provided additional input to three documents that were
distributed in conjunction with this item of the agenda, including one entitled “Logic Model –
Food Program – Goal 1”, another entitled “Data Flow Diagram – Food Program Licensing
Example”, and a third document entitled “Data Dictionary – Food Program Licensing Example”.
The documents each represented the beginnings of the Working Group products that would
ultimately be compiled into an Action Plan for the food program. A summary of the
brainstorming work accomplished by the Working Group with regard to the distributed
documents follows.




Minnesota Department of Health                                                           Page SD5-8
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
                         Applying the process - practicing with licensing
Goal 1:    Ensure consistent and high quality implementation of food safety and
           protection across all facilities / jurisdictions.
                     Inputs                                       External Factors
      Money                                                Not all organizations have same
      Staff (trained & up-to-date)                          responsibilities or ability to
      Technology (information systems)                      “mandate”.
      Knowledge of trends
      Standards or mandates
      Interagency agreement, intra-agency
       agreement
                                               Outputs
                     Activities                                       Participation
     Establish a coordinated program for                  Decision makers (at all levels and in
        administration and evaluation that                    a variety of areas).
        includes an interoperable licensing,               IT staff
        inspection and enforcement system.                 Administrative staff
     Develop common definitions,                          Licensing staff
        classification schemes, and terminology            Food program staff
        for entities that we license.                      Contractors
                                              Outcomes
           Short Term                       Medium Term                         Long Term
There is a system wide                Licensing, inspection and      An integrated interoperable
recognition that the primary          enforcement information is system for administration,
purpose of public health              collected and shared in a      evaluation, and prevention
occupational and business             consistent manner.             activities is established to
regulation is to reduce the health                                   address food safety and
and safety risks of goods or                                         protection across all facilities /
services.                                                            jurisdictions.


         Recommendations for Additional Licensing Data Elements to be Shared
   1. CFM
   2. County
   3. E-mail
   4. Emergency contact information and preferences
   5. Establishment class
   6. Fax
   7. Federal Tax ID no.
   8. Fees
   9. GIS coordinate
   10. Health or Agriculture delegated?
   11. MN Tax ID no.
   12. New of changed owner
   13. Owner information
   14. Period of operation (seasonal)
   15. Public water supply ID No.
Minnesota Department of Health                                                               Page SD5-9
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                     September 2007: Version 2007.9
   16. Regulatory agency
   17. Risk category
   18. Sanitarian / inspector responsible
   19. Sewer
   20. Smoking status
   21. Status of license
   22. Use of unique identification numbers (rather than SSN) for operators
   23. Water source
   24. Workers comp.


                                Issues to Address in Action Plan
   1.   Resources (Who?)
   2.   Capability to submit electronically (How?)
   3.   Sharing versus taking (Why?)
   4.   Implementation (When?) staged
   5.   Advances notice
   6.   Value to all (Why?)
   7.   All access? (Where?)
   8.   Pilot (How?)
   9.   Verification against other records

   6. Review of day and next steps / next convening of Working Group


Review of day: The Working Group was pleased with the direction and flow of today’s meeting.

Next steps: MDH staff will compile a draft data dictionary for licensing data elements
   recommended by the Working Group for collection and sharing on a statewide basis
   (statewide recommended food program licensing data elements).

Next meeting: It was agreed that the MDH EHD should proceed with making arrangements for
   members of the Working Group to meet on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 from 9:00 a.m. – 3:30
   p.m.


Meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.



Prepared by Jennifer Miller




Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-10
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
                            EH Knowledge Management Project
                      Working Group (Food Program) Meeting
                                      Meeting Notes
                                  Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Present:
Working Group Members: Brent Rossow, Colleen Paulus, Dawn Beck, Mark Clary (MEHA),
Mary Woodford, Pam Steinbach, Serena Vergin, Tony Georgeson
Steering Committee Members: Angie Wheeler, Lars Johnson, Laura Scheinoha
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Duane Wiste, Jennifer Miller, Mike Kaluzniak
Guests: Jerry Smith (MDH, EHD – DWP Section, NPWS Unit), Katie Spenger (summer intern
for Brown-Nicollet Community Health Services)


   1. Greetings, introductions, and housekeeping

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, and then attendees introduced
themselves.

   2. Restate “Charge of Working Group”

David Wulff (DW) led a brief discussion regarding the responsibilities assigned to the Working
Group (referring to the document entitled “EH Knowledge Management Project – Program Area
Working Groups – MEMBERSHIP AND CHARGE”). The feedback received was that Working Group
members were comfortable with their “charge”, and the approach being taken in accomplishing
the tasks that have been assigned to the group.

   3. Review of data dictionary compiled thus far for licensing

Background Information: During the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) meeting held on
   July 13, 2006, it was agreed that MDH staff would compile a draft data dictionary for
   licensing data elements recommended by the Working Group for collection and sharing on a
   statewide basis (statewide recommended food program licensing data elements). In support
   of this effort, several members of the Working Group shared with MDH staff copies of their
   food program license applications.

   Following the July 13th meeting of the Working Group, MDH staff began the task of
   reviewing the statewide recommended food program licensing data elements and comparing
   those elements with the data collected in the various food program license applications
   shared with MDH. During this review process, issues were identified for further discussion
   by the Working Group. Those issues were summarized in a document entitled “Data
   Elements Pertaining to Food Program Licensing – Issues to Resolve”.

Jennifer Miller (JM) began this agenda item by asking the Working Group to review the
document entitled “Data Elements Pertaining to Food Program Licensing – Issues to Resolve”.
The Working Group began by discussing the use of key terminology found in the various food
program license applications that had been shared with MDH. The key terms discussed, the
context in which they are used by various agencies represented by the Working Group

Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-11
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
membership, and the identified links between terms are shown in the diagram entitled “Licensing
Discussion: Terminology Issues to be Resolved”.

The Working Group recognized the wide variation in key licensing terms, and agreed that MDH
staff would take the results of today’s discussion and compile and share with the Working Group
a list of draft definitions for the identified key terms and incorporate these terms into the listing
of data elements / data definitions associated with food program licensing.

Once the terminology discussion was concluded, the Working Group went on to address to other
questions raised by MDH staff in compiling the data dictionary for statewide recommended food
program licensing data elements; those questions and Working Group responses follow.

Q:     What was the Working Group’s intent when they recommended that information
       pertaining to “Establishment Class” be shared?

A:     The Working Group was referring to information pertaining to risk type.

Q:     The Working Group expressed an interest in sharing “Fee Information”; what was the
       intent of sharing this information, and how might this information be captured /
       categorized (different agencies have different fee structures / base fees on different
       parameters)?

A:     In the logic models for the food program, money is identified as an input (resource)
       needed to achieve outcomes. The intent of collecting and sharing fee information on a
       statewide basis is to determine whether or not fees are adequate to support programmatic
       efforts aimed at improving public health.

       Currently, different agencies use different fee structures when issuing food program
       licenses. Depending on the licensing agency, fees may be assessed based on the type of
       establishment, the size of an establishment, the type of service / product provided to
       customers, the “risk class” of the establishment, the “operation period” of an
       establishment, or whether or not an establishment is operated by a charitable 501-C3
       organization or school.

Given the wide variations in fee structures, and the challenges posed by such variations when it
comes to trying to perform comparative analyses regarding fees, the Working Group concluded
that for now, the inclusion of data elements related to fee information would not be considered of
highest priority. Rather, the Working Group felt that providing an option for agencies to share
their license fee schedules, as stand-alone documents, would be of value and interest as an initial
step toward the collection and sharing of fee information on a statewide basis.

Parking Lot (future data sharing opportunities)
       1. The inclusion of data elements related to fee information to be collected and shared
          on a statewide basis will be viewed as a future data sharing opportunity.




Minnesota Department of Health                                                            Page SD5-12
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                    September 2007: Version 2007.9
                                              LICENSING DISCUSSION: Terminology Issues to be Resolved


       Business:              business name; what a                                       Institution:                    institutional food
                   business calls itself; name over the                                                  service; type of establishment
                   door; doing business as (DBA).                                                        (school, jail); licensing category.


       Corporation:                           parent; owner;                              Licensee:              entity to whom license is
                       LLC, “person” (see MN Rules, 4626.0020                                         issued; business owner; corporation;
                       1-201.10, Subp. 54.)                                                           responsible legal / taxable entity.

       Establishment:                          name over
                                                                                          LLC:                     sub-set of corporation
                            the door; physical location;
                            business address

       Facility:               a component within the                                     Operator:              person who runs the
                   establishment (swimming pool, spa,                                                 business; person who oversees the
                   etc.); physical location; an operation;                                            day-to-day operations; sometimes
                   a subgroup of an establishment; same                                               same as manager / owner.
                   as establishment to some.

                                                                                          Owner:                 person who owns the
       Food Service:                  level of operation;                                             establishment (not interested in the
                       type of operation; licensing                                                   building owner); licensee; franchisee;
                       category.                                                                      could be same as operator.

       Group:                   special event group;
                   licensee for special group; relates to                                  Proprietor:                         “person” (see MN
                   tax status; relates to workman’s                                                       Rules, 4626.0020 1-201.10, Subp. 54.);
                   comp.                                                                                  business type; used to indicate
                                                                                                          sole proprietor.
      Key

                   Terminology: context of use                           Direct relationship exists                          Direct relationship may exist


Minnesota Department of Health                                                                                                               Page SD5-13
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                                                                    September 2007: Version 2007.9
   4. Applying the process – discussion of inspection data

The discussion of food program inspections began by reviewing a Context Diagram for
Environmental and Safety Inspections that was excerpted and adapted from a tool compiled by
the Public Health Informatics Institute and the National Association of County and City Health
Officials in 2006 (see ATaking Care of Business: A Collaboration to Define Local Health
Department Business Processes. Decatur, GA: Public Health Informatics Institute@).

The Working Group reflected on whom they perceived would make up what were termed
“Direct Interaction” groups in the adapted Context Diagram, discussed whether or not the
example of the business process flow correlated with the process followed by their agencies
when conducting food program inspections, and made suggestions for business processes (links
and functions) to be added or modified in the diagram. The results of the discussion are
presented in at the end of these meeting notes.

Following the discussion of the Context Diagram for Environmental and Safety Inspections, and
its applicability to food program inspections in MN, the Working Group went on to address
questions regarding food program inspections (in the context of the EHKMP) and to begin work
on a list of data elements that they viewed as valuable when it came to the collection and sharing
of information on a statewide basis (statewide recommended food program inspection data
elements). Flip chart notes taken during the last half of the all day meeting of the Working
Group follow.

                               What is the value of inspections?
    1. Enables the ability to educate, promote change, and take legal action when necessary.
    2. Provides assurance to the public that minimum inspection standards are met.
    3. Establishes operator connection to public health.
    4. Inspections serve as an important initial interaction between government and operator.
    5. Inspections serve as an opportunity to see if public health standards are being met.
    6. Inspections serve as an opportunity to evaluate how well risk factors are being
        controlled.
    7. Inspections confirm the identity of business and responsible parties.
    8. For a sanitarian, inspections serve as a basis for our other regulatory, educational, and
        emergency preparedness activities.
    9. Inspections serve as a basis for enforcement.
    10. Inspections serve as an opportunity to continually improve food safety and reduce
        public health risks.

                              Why share inspection information?
    1.   For trend analyses.
    2.   To guide business practice.
    3.   To promote consistency.
    4.   To identify gaps and differences.
    5.   To help us develop “best practices”
    6.   To increase the value of our programs / credibility with the public.
    7.   To make inspecting agencies more accountable.
    8.   To see if we are focusing on critical risk factors
    9.   Sharing inspection information presents an opportunity for learning and for “informed
Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-14
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
         decision making”.

                 Recommendations for Inspection Data Elements to be Shared
    1.   Evidence / information regarding systems (being followed or “systems in place”) to
         address risk factors.
    2.   Information regarding risk factors that are not being controlled.
    3.   Data / information as to why risk factors are not being controlled.
    4.   Data / information regarding interventions applied to address risk factors not being
         controlled.

                                 Discussion of Risk Factors
     The Working Group identified the following issues as “agreed upon risk factors”:
   1. Unsafe sources                      4. Contaminated equipment
   2. Inadequate cooking                  5. Personal hygiene
   3. Improper temperatures
   When assessing risk factors, the Working Group agreed that consideration be given to:
   1. Demonstration of knowledge           4. Conformance with HACCP
   2. Consumer advisory                    5. Risk assessment related to duties /
   3. Chemicals                                interventions of CFMs (is a system in place to
                                               address risk factors as a public health
                                               intervention?)

   5. Review of day and next steps / next convening of Working Group

Review of day: The Working Group was pleased with the direction and flow of today’s meeting.

Next steps: MDH staff will take the results of today’s discussion and revise the data dictionary
   compiled thus far statewide recommended food program licensing data elements. The
   resulting draft data dictionary will be distributed to the Working Group for their review and
   comment.

   MDH staff will compile a draft data dictionary for inspection data elements recommended by
   the Working Group for collection and sharing on a statewide basis (statewide recommended
   food program inspection data elements).

   During the next meeting, the Working Group will wrap up their discussion of food program
   inspection data elements and move on to a discussion of statewide recommended food
   program enforcement data elements.

Next meeting: The Working Group agreed to meet from 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. during the week
   of August 14, 2006; MDH staff will pole Working Group members to find date of most
   convenience.

Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.                                        Prepared by Jennifer Miller



Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-15
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
                           Discussion of Context Diagram for Environmental and Safety Inspections1:
                                            The Applicability to Food Program Inspections in MN
                                         Suggestions for Additional Transaction Links and “Functions”

      “Direct
                           Make-up of “Direct            Review of business process flow / suggestions for additional links and
    Interaction”
                           Interaction” Group            “functions”
       Group
Applicant /                Applicant / owner               Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection
Owner                                                        1. Applicant / Owner: Provide information and feedback  Agency Responsible
                                                                for Inspection
                                                             2. Applicant / Owner:  Requirements Standards are received from Agency
                                                                Responsible for Inspection
                                                             See other “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                            Transaction links with Installers
                                                             See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                            Outcome link with Installers
                                                             See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                            Transaction links with Consultants / Designer
                                                             See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                          Transaction links with Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2 2
                                                           1. Applicant / Owner:  Standard operating procedures are received from
                                                              Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2
                                                           2. Applicant / Owner:  Audit / QA review is conducted by Corporate Food
                                                              Safety Consultant / Auditor2
                                                           3. Applicant / Owner: Provide information and feedback  Corporate Food
                                                              Safety Consultant / Auditor2
Consultants /              Architect                     Transaction links with Installers
Designer (PE)              Engineer                         See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                           Owner                            Transaction links with Applicant / Owner
                           Equipment Specialists            See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram




1
  Modification of Context Diagram presented in ATaking Care of Business: A Collaboration to Define Local Health Department Business Processes. Decatur, GA:
Public Health Informatics Institute@.
2
  “Direct Interaction” group added by EHKMP Working Group (Food Program).
Minnesota Department of Health                                                                                                                    Page SD5-16
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                                                                            September 2007: Version 2007.9
Corporate Food          Corporate food safety      Transaction links with Applicant / Owner
Safety Consultant        consultant / auditor        1. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2: Provide standard operating
/ Auditor2                                              procedures  Applicant / Owner
                                                     2. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2: Conduct audit / QA  Applicant
                                                        / Owner
                                                     3. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2: Provide information and feedback
                                                         Applicant / Owner
                                                    Transaction links with Science & Academia2
                                                     1. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2:  Information, education and
                                                        training is received from Science & Academia2
                                                     2. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2:  Science based
                                                        recommendations and guidance is received from Science & Academia2
                                                    Transition links with State Agency Program Administrator
                                                     1. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2: Provide updates / ensure
                                                        communication  State Agency Program Administrator
                                                     2. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2:  Standards and guidance are
                                                        received from State Agency Program Administrator
                                                     3. Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2:  Training, education and
                                                        information is received from State Agency Program Administrator
Federal Agencies2       CDC                        Transaction links with State Agency Program Administrator
                        EPA                         1. Federal Agencies2: Provide standards and guidance  State Agency Program
                        FDA                            Administrator
                        USDA                        2. Federal Agencies2: Provide training, education and information  State Agency
                                                        Program Administrator
                                                     3. Federal Agencies2: Provide updates / ensure communication  State Agency
                                                        Program Administrator
                                                    Transaction links with Science & Academia2
                                                     1. Federal Agencies2:  Information, education and training is received from
                                                        Science & Academia2
                                                     2. Federal Agencies2:  Science based recommendations and guidance is received
                                                        from Science & Academia2




 Minnesota Department of Health                                                                                           Page SD5-17
 EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                                                   September 2007: Version 2007.9
Installers              Contractors                  Transaction links with Applicant / Owner
                        Equipment suppliers           See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                        Plumbers                     Outcome link with Applicant / Owner
                        Installers of equipment       See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                      Transaction links with Consultants / Designer
                                                       See “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                                                      Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                       1. Installers:  Plan review guidance / feedback is received from Agency
                                                          Responsible for Inspection
                                                       See other “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
Policy Board            Boards of health             Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection
                        Commissions                   1. Policy Board:  Education is received from Agency Responsible for Inspection
                        Local legislatures            2. Policy Board: Provide rules standards  Agency Responsible for Inspection
                        State legislature             See other “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
                        Planning / zoning          Transaction links with Science & Academia2
                         boards                      1. Policy Board:  Information, education and training is received from Science
                        Building code /                & Academia2
                         inspection                  2. Policy Board:  Science based recommendations and guidance is received
                                                        from Science & Academia2
Public                  Public                     Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                     1. Public  Education is received from Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                     3. Public: Provide feedback  Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                       See other “functions” noted with transitional link identified in diagram
Science &               Science and academia         Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection, Federal Agencies2, Policy
Academia2                                              Board, and State Agency Program Administrator
                                                       1. Science & Academia2: Provide information, education and training  Agency
                                                          Responsible for Inspection, Federal Agencies2, Policy Board, and State Agency
                                                          Program Administrator
                                                       2. Science & Academia2: Provide science based recommendations and guidance 
                                                          Agency Responsible for Inspection, Federal Agencies2, Policy Board, and State
                                                          Agency Program Administrator

State Agency            MDH                          Transaction links with Agency Responsible for Inspection
Program                 MDA                           1. State Agency Program Administrator: Use rules and public health standards to
Administrator           Commissioners                    enforce delegation  Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                       2. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide rules to enforce delegation
                                                          standards  Agency Responsible for Inspection

 Minnesota Department of Health                                                                                                             Page SD5-18
 EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                                                                     September 2007: Version 2007.9
                                                    3. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide updates / ensure communication
                                                        Agency Responsible for Inspection
                                                   Transaction links with Federal Agencies2
                                                    1. State Agency Program Administrator:  Standards and guidance is received
                                                       from Federal Agencies2
                                                    2. State Agency Program Administrator:  Training, education and information is
                                                       received from Federal Agencies2
                                                    3. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide updates / ensure communication
                                                        Federal Agencies2
                                                   Transaction links with Science & Academia2
                                                    1. State Agency Program Administrator:  Information, education and training is
                                                       received from Science & Academia2
                                                    2. State Agency Program Administrator:  Science based recommendations and
                                                       guidance is received from Science & Academia2
                                                   Transition links with Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2
                                                    1. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide updates / ensure communication
                                                        Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2
                                                    2. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide standards and guidance 
                                                       Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2
                                                    3. State Agency Program Administrator: Provide training, education and
                                                       information  Corporate Food Safety Consultant / Auditor2


For a visual depiction of the information presented in the table above, please refer to the Context Diagram below.




Minnesota Department of Health                                                                                                Page SD5-19
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                                                        September 2007: Version 2007.9
Minnesota Department of Health                           Page SD5-20
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program   September 2007: Version 2007.9
                             EH Knowledge Management Project
                      Working Group (Food Program) Meeting
                                        Meeting Notes
                                   Thursday, August 17, 2006

Present:
Working Group Members: Brent Rossow, Colleen Paulus, Dawn Beck, Mary Woodford, Pam
Steinbach, Serena Vergin
Steering Committee Members: Lars Johnson, Laura Scheinoha
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Duane Wiste, Jennifer Miller, Mike Kaluzniak
Guests: Jerry Smith (MDH, EHD – DWP Section, NPWS Unit), Katie Spenger (summer intern
for Brown-Nicollet Community Health Services)


       1. Greetings, updates, and approval of meeting notes

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, and then attendees introduced
themselves.

Updates
 Jennifer Miller (JM) reported that new information will be posted on the project web site
   reflecting tasks undertaken by the Working Group to date. Once all updates are posted, a
   GovDelivery notice will be sent out to EHKMP subscribers.
 CP reported that John Stine sent EHKMP Steering Committee members an update of tasks
   undertaken by the Working Group to date. JM will forward information sent to Steering
   Committee members on to Working Group members.
 CP confirmed changes in Working Group membership. During July, 2006, Merry Jo
   DeMarais, Donna O’Conner, and Donald Cheney officially resigned from the Working
   Group due to work commitments. A new Working Group Contact List was distributed to
   today’s meeting attendees.

Meeting Notes: Brent Rossow requested that notes from the Working Group meetings held on
  July 13, 2006 and July 19, 2006 be revised to reflect his attendance and participation in those
  meetings; with the incorporation of the change requested by Brent, the Meeting Notes for
  July 13 and July 19, 2006 were approved by the Working Group.

       2. Wrap-up discussion of licensure information

This discussion began with a re-cap of the terminology challenges encountered in the drafting of
the food program licensing data dictionary, and a proposal for resolving the challenges. The
Working reviewed a document entitled “Proposed Terminology for Licensing Data Dictionary”,
and approved of the concepts contained therein. JM gave a verbal summary of the comments
received thus far regarding the food program licensing data dictionary, many of which would
now be resolved given the approval of the “proposed terminology” document. The Working
Group then made final recommendations for changes to the food program licensing data
dictionary; requested changes follow:


Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-21
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
      CFM requirement information will be collected [is a food establishment required to have
       a CFM? … “yes” or “no”].
      Last name fields will be lengthened from the current character width of 30 [a character
       width of 50 will now be reserved for all last name fields].
      Data element for a food establishment’s web site will be added [recognized that not all
       food establishments will have a web site].
       “Food Establishment Emergency Contact …”data elements will be changed to “Food
       Establishment All Hazards Emergency Contact …“ data elements.
      Operator information will be limited to the name of the operator (first, middle, last,
       suffix).
      Inspector information will be eliminated.
      Licensing agency information will be expanded.
      Workman’s compensation policy information will be eliminated.

JM will incorporate all changes requested by the Working Group into the food program licensing
data dictionary and send out a final draft of the dictionary for commentary / approval.

During the discussion of food program licensure information, there were some issues raised that
the Working Group decided to not to try and resolve during today’s discussion; those issues
follow:

                                          Parking Lot
   1. What if there are multiple Certified Food Managers per food establishment; should names
      of all CFMs be included in information collected and shared on a statewide basis?
   2. Collecting and sharing fee information – data can be collected, however using the data for
      comparative purposes will be challenging given the variations that exist when it comes to
      current food program fee structures.
   3. The terminology “food establishment” is used in the MN Statutes 2005, Chapter 157 to
      describe a physical location, however, the same terminology is used the MN Rules,
      Chapter 4626 to describe an operation / activity; is this an issue in need of further
      discussion / clarification?

       3. Continue discussion of inspection data

This agenda item began with a re-cap of the discussion the Working Group engaged in when
they last met on July 19, 2006. Examples of inspection forms shared by members of the
Working Group were distributed and referred to as the group continued their “brainstorming” of
ideas pertaining to the collection and sharing of food program inspection data on a statewide
basis. During this brainstorming effort, the group asked of themselves “what are some of the
things that we would we like to be able to derive from food program inspection information that
is collected and shared on a statewide basis?” -- ideas suggested in response to that question
follow:

      Identification of trends
      Number of food establishments per inspector
      Number of square miles per inspector “official area”
      Top ten items noted as “in need of improvement”.

Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-22
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
      Compliance status pertaining to foodborne illness risk factors
      Compliance status pertaining to demonstration of knowledge (ref. 4636-0030)
      Compliance status pertaining to responsibilities of person-in-charge (ref. 4626-0035)
      Compliance status pertaining to duties of CFM (ref 4626-2010 [5])
      Number of staff working on shift
      Date and time inspection conducted (peak / non peak … may be linked to revenue intake)

The Working Group then went on to make specific recommendations for food program
inspection information that should be collected and shared on a statewide basis; those
recommendations follow:

                                 Food Program Inspections
    Recommendations for Information to be Collected and Shared on a Statewide Basis
CFM
     yes
     no
Person-in-charge
     yes
     no
Food establishment information (or food establishment identification number?)
Owner information (or owner identification number?)
Inspector
Agency
Date
Time
Type of inspection visit
     pre-opening
     scheduled / complete
     scheduled / observation
     unannounced
     re-inspection
     requested announced
Risk Category (high, medium, or low)
Compliance status
      IN (in compliance)
      OUT (not in compliance)
      N/O (not observed)
      N/A (not applicable)
      COS (corrected on-site during inspection)
      R (repeat violation)
      NR (not reviewed)
                                    Risk Factor Information
1. Food source and condition (9-11, 29)
    Food obtained from approved source (9)
    Food received at proper temperature (10)
    Food in good condition, safe, & unadulterated (11)
    Water & ice from approved source (29)
2. Food time and temperature (16-22)
Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-23
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
    Proper cooking time & temperature (16)
    Proper reheating procedures for hot holding (17)
    Proper cooling time & temperature (18)
    Proper hot holding temperature (19)
    Proper cold holding temperature (20)
    Proper date marking & disposition (21)
    Time as a public health control: procedures & record (22)
3. Contamination (sources)
    Food (13)
              Food separated / protected from cross contamination (13)
    Equipment (14)
              Food contact surfaces: cleaned & sanitized (14)
    People (7, 44)
              Hand contact with RTE foods restricted (7)
              Gloves used properly (44)
4. Employee health (2,3)
    Management awareness; policy present (2)
    Proper use of reporting, restriction & exclusion (3)
5. Hand hygiene (6,8)
    Hands clean & properly washed (6)
    Adequate handwashing facilities supplied & accessible (8)
 Note:   For the risk factors identified above, the number that appears in parentheses and italicized font (##)
         corresponds control and preventative measures as they are numbered and identified by the Conference for
         Food Protection (and listed on the CFP issued Food Establishment Inspection Report).

         4. Applying the process – discussion of enforcement data

The Working Group began the task of identifying enforcement data to be collected and shared on
a statewide basis by listing enforcement tools that are currently used by food programs in
Minnesota. The Working Group identified the following food program enforcement tools,
acknowledging that not all food programs have the same enforcement tools available for their
use.

                                            Enforcement Tools
               Administrative
               Cease and desist
               Civil (resulting from formal complaint)
               Condemnation
               Criminal (resulting from formal complaint)
               Embargo
               Fees (including re-inspection fees) / fines
               Injunction
               Stipulation agreement
               License actions, including:
                 Suspension
                 Revocation
                 Conditional
                 Voluntary closure

Minnesota Department of Health                                                                    Page SD5-24
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                            September 2007: Version 2007.9
Having recognized the differences that exist when it comes to the use of food program
enforcement tools, the Working Group went on to make recommendations for food program
enforcement information that should be collected and shared on a statewide basis; those
recommendations follow:

                                 Food Program Enforcement
     Recommendations for Information to be Collected and Shared on a Statewide Basis
   Is enforcement happening (yes / no)?
   What are the enforcement tools being used?
   What prompted the enforcement action?
   Was enforcement action taken against a license (yes / no)
   Did enforcement action result in the shutting down of a food establishment (yes / no)
   Food establishment name
   Agency
   Current status of enforcement action

       5. Brainstorming Reports to be derived from information collected

Time was not sufficient to discuss ideas for the reporting of food program information that the
Working Group has identified for collection and sharing on a statewide basis. The decision was
made to address this agenda item when the Working Group is next convened.

       6. Review of day and next steps / next convening of Working Group

Review of day: The Working Group expressed that they were pleased with the direction and
   flow of today’s meeting.

    A document entitled “Phase I – Food Program” was distributed to the Working Group and
    briefly reviewed; this document was part of the “progress update” sent out to EHKMP
    Steering Committee members by John Stine earlier in the week. The Working Group was
    asked whether or not they felt that they had sufficiently discussed the “Phase I” food program
    topic areas, or if they wanted to do some additional group work before their accomplishments
    are compiled and shared with the Focus Group and Steering Committee. Working Group
    members present at today’s meeting said that they felt additional work was needed, and that
    they were prepared to devote more time to group discussion.

Next steps: MDH staff will incorporate all licensing data element changes requested by the
   Working Group into the food program licensing data dictionary and send out a final draft of
   the dictionary for commentary / approval. Additionally, staff will take the results of today’s
   discussion and compile draft data dictionaries for food program inspection and enforcement
   data. The resulting draft food program data dictionaries will be distributed electronically to
   the Working Group for their review and comment.

    MDH staff will propose optional dates and times for the Working Group to reconvene to
    wrap-up discussions and approve final materials for compilation / presentation to the Focus
    Group and Steering Committee. The dates and times proposed will be for either another

Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-25
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
   face-to-face day-long meeting of the Working Group, or for re-convening the Working
   Group via conference call(s) of no more than 2-hours in duration.


Next meeting: TBD; the meeting or conference call(s) will be held sometime after the Labor
   Day holiday.




Meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.                                     Prepared by Jennifer Miller




Minnesota Department of Health                                                      Page SD5-26
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                              September 2007: Version 2007.9
                            EH Knowledge Management Project
                           Working Group (Food Program)
                                   Conference Call Notes
                                 Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Participants:
Working Group Members: Ben Miller, Brent Rossow, Colleen Paulus, Lynn Moore, Mark
Clary, Mary Woodford, Pam Steinbach, Serena Vergin
Steering Committee Members: Laura Scheinoha
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Duane Wiste, Jennifer Miller
Guests: Jerry Smith (MDH, EHD – DWP Section, NPWS Unit)


       1. Greetings, updates, and approval of meeting notes

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone on today’s conference call, and then attendees
introduced themselves.

Updates
 CP reported that John Stine would be talking about the EHKMP and the contributions being
   made by this group (the Working Group [Food Program]) at this week’s SCHAC meeting
   and Community Health Conference.
 Jennifer Miller (JM) reported that the EHKMP is now “in-line” to become one of the first
   projects within MN-PHIN’s “Community of Practice”; we expect to receive MN-PHIN
   approval / sponsorship on October 4, 2006.

Meeting Notes: the Working Group approved Meeting Notes for August 17, 2006.

       2. Licensure work products – consensus decisions

This agenda item began with a discussion of draft licensure work products distributed on
September 19, 2006, including the Draft Data Dictionary for licensing and the Draft Data Flow
Diagram for licensing. JM gave a verbal summary of the comments received regarding the food
program licensing data dictionary. The Working Group made final recommendations for
changes to the Draft Data Dictionary for licensing; recommended changes follow:

      The definition for “CFM Certification Number” will be changed to “The Food Manager
       (FM) Certificate number issued by MDH to the certified food manager of the food
       establishment. Self reported. It is verified with a copy of the Food Manager Certificate
       issued by MDH.”
      The definition for “CFM Expiration Date” will be changed to “The expiration date of the
       Food Manager (FM) Certificate number issued by MDH to the certified food manager of
       the food establishment. Self reported. It is verified with a copy of the CFM certification
       issued by MDH.”
      In keeping with the Working Group’s recommended changes to the CFM data elements
       listed above, JM recognized the need for additional revisions to the following data
       elements pertaining to certified food managers.

Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-27
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
            1. The definition for “CFM Certification Required” will be changed to “Status of the
               food establishment in terms of CFM certification requirement. Values include
               “yes” (meaning the food establishment is required to employ a certified food
               manager), or “N/A” (meaning the food establishment does not have to employ a
               certified food manager)”.
            2. For all data elements pertaining to the name of the certified food manager of the
               food establishment, the sentence “It is verified with a copy of the CFM
               certification issued by MDH.” within the data element definitions will be changed
               to “It is verified with a copy of the Food Manager Certificate issued by MDH.”
      For all data elements pertaining to the address of a food establishment, the word
       “business” will be omitted from the definition (this change (if applicable) will be made in
       all data dictionaries developed by the Working Group (Food Program).
      Data elements pertaining to the “Preferred Address for the Food Establishment” will be
       added (this change (if applicable) will be made in all data dictionaries developed by the
       Working Group (Food Program).
      All data elements pertaining to federal tax identification numbers will be omitted (this
       change (if applicable) will be made in all data dictionaries developed by the Working
       Group (Food Program).
      For the “Food Establishment Risk Category” data element, the “Risk exemption” value
       will be replaced with “N/A (not applicable to mobile food units, seasonal, or others
       exempt from the need to have a risk category assigned)”.
      A data element for the date when a food establishment is closed will be added.
      “Food Establishment Previous Owner …”data element definitions will be revised to use
       the following wording: “…. previous owner (within the past seven years) of the food
       establishment”.
      All data elements pertaining to social security information will be omitted (this change (if
       applicable) will be made in all data dictionaries developed by the Working Group (Food
       Program).
      Lars Johnson submitted a recommendation that the first sentence that appears in the
       definition for “Food Establishment Opening Date” be changed to “The date the food
       establishment was given approval to open. ” As this rewording seems to be a more
       precise definition than what is currently contained in the Draft Data Dictionary it will
       replace the current definition for “Food Establishment Opening Date”.

Other recommendations that resulted from the discussion of the Draft Data Dictionary for
licensing include the following:
    1. Recommended that MDH provide its data retention schedule for locals to use (and that
        would be followed by MDH) when it comes to the retention of food establishment
        licensure information.
    2. Recommended that county identifying codes (for use in conjunction with the number
        associated with the license issued to the food establishment) be included as an
        Attachment to the Data Dictionary.

JM will incorporate all recommended changes into the Data Dictionary for licensing that will be
included as one of the Draft Action Plan Work Products.

JM then moved on to briefly discuss the content of the Draft Data Flow Diagram for licensing;
the Working Group requested no changes to the document.
Minnesota Department of Health                                                          Page SD5-28
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                  September 2007: Version 2007.9
       3. Inspection work products – consensus decisions

This agenda item began with a discussion of draft inspection work products distributed on
September 19, 2006, including the Draft Data Dictionary for inspections, the Draft Data Flow
Diagram for inspections, and the Draft Context Diagram for inspections.

JM gave a verbal summary of the comments received regarding the food program inspections
data dictionary. The Working Group made final recommendations for changes to the Draft Data
Dictionary for inspections; requested changes follow:

      An “Owner Name (if not an individual” data element will be added for use when the
       owner of a food establishment is an entity other than an individual (as would be the case
       when an owner is a business or corporation.
      The definitions pertaining to “Inspector” data elements (see data elements 20 through 24)
       will be changed to “… the individual who conducted the inspection. ...”
      “Peak Time Indicator” information will be omitted (see data element 45)
      “Staff on Shift” information will be omitted (see data element 46)
      The Working Group recognized a flaw in the current CFP form, in that it assumes that all
       inspections recorded on the form are full inspections. Given this situation it makes it
       difficult to ensure consistency in the use of the form when inspections other than full
       inspections are conducted. The Working Group came to the conclusion that for the time
       being, only information pertaining to complete inspections, conducted as announced or
       unannounced inspections, would be included in the EHKMP for the food program.

For this reason, the Working Group recommended the following:.

            Change the title of data element 41 from “Purpose of Inspection” to “Type of
             Inspection”

            Change the definition of data element 41 to “The type of inspection visit; values
             include “announced complete” or “unannounced complete”

            For data elements 47 through 84, the values will be consistent with those
             indicated on the CFP.

              Note: There was a suggestion that values be changed to numeric fields (with the
              number 1 corresponding to items determined to be in compliance, and the number
              2 corresponding to items determined to be out of compliance); programmers can
              incorporate this change “behind the scenes”, however to avoid confusion, the
              values to be collected and shared will remain consistent with the values that
              appear on the CFP.

      In keeping with the Working Group’s recommended changes to the CFM data elements
       included in the Draft Data Dictionary for licensing , JM recognized the need for revising
       the definition of “CFM – Duties” in the Draft Data Dictionary for inspections as
       follows: “The certified food manager of the food establishment carries out duties set

Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-29
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
       forth in MN Rules, Chapter 4626 (see 4626-2010); values include “yes”, “no”, or “N/A”
       (meaning the food establishment does not have to employ a certified food manager)”

JM will incorporate all recommended changes into the Data Dictionary for inspection that will be
included as one of the Draft Action Plan Work Products.

JM then moved on to briefly discuss the content of the Draft Data Flow Diagram for inspections
and the Draft Context Diagram for inspections; the Working Group requested no changes to the
documents.

       4. Enforcement work products – consensus decisions

This agenda item began with a discussion of draft inspection work products distributed on
September 19, 2006, including the Draft Data Dictionary for enforcement, the Draft Data Flow
Diagram for enforcement, and the Draft Context Diagram for enforcement.

JM gave a verbal summary of the comments received regarding the food program enforcement
data dictionary. The Working Group made final recommendations for changes to the Draft Data
Dictionary for enforcement; requested changes follow:

      Omit data elements 20, 21, 24 through 37
      Change the title of data element 23 from “Enforcement Tools – Closure - Effective Date”
       to “Enforcement Tools – Closure - Issued Date”, and define this data element as “The
       date when closure orders were issued by the agency; expressed in MM/DD/YYYY
       format”.
      Change the title of data element 39 from “Enforcement Tools – Stipulation - Effective
       Date” to “Enforcement Tools – Stipulation - Issued Date”, and define this data element as
       “The date when stipulation agreement(s) was issued by the agency; expressed in
       MM/DD/YYYY format”.
      Change the title of data element 40 from “Enforcement Tools – Other” to “Enforcement
       Tools – Revocation”, and define this data element as “Status of the use of revocation
       tools during the progression of enforcement actions applied to the food establishment;
       values include “yes” (meaning revocation tools used), or “no” (meaning revocation tools
       not used).
      Change the title of data element 41 from “Enforcement Tools – Other - Effective Date” to
       “Enforcement Tools – Revocation – Issued Date”, and define this data element as “The
       date when revocation orders were issued by the agency; expressed in MM/DD/YYYY
       format”.
      Add a data element(s) to capture information pertaining to the outcome of enforcement
       action(s) taken.

JM will incorporate all recommended changes into the Data Dictionary for enforcement that will
be included as one of the Draft Action Plan Work Products.

JM then moved on to briefly discuss the content of the Draft Data Flow Diagram for enforcement
and the Draft Context Diagram for enforcement; the Working Group requested no changes to the
documents.

Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-30
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
       5. Brainstorming reports to be derived from information collected

Time was not sufficient to discuss ideas for the reporting of food program information that the
Working Group has identified for collection and sharing on a statewide basis. The decision was
made to have the Working Group submit ideas regarding this agenda item to Jennifer Miller no
later than the end of the business day on October 5, 2006.

       6. Remaining work products to reach consensus on

Logic Model – It was acknowledged that the draft logic models that were prepared and discussed
during first meeting of the Working Group need to be revised and simplified. The suggestion
that follows for accomplishing this task met with Working Group approval:

MDH staff will draft a single logic model reflecting what the Working Group has included as
work products / recommendations under what we have called Phase I of the food program,
whereby the overall output will be the Phase I Action Plan developed for the food program; the
goals set forth by the Steering Committee will serve as the long term outcomes for the logic
model.

       7. Next Steps

MDH staff will prepare a Draft Action Plan for the Working Group’s approval: Once approval is
obtained, the Draft Action Plan will be shared with the Focus Group and Steering Committee for
their feedback.




Conference call ended at 3:00 p.m.                                   Prepared by Jennifer Miller




Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-31
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
                             EH Knowledge Management Project
                              Working Group (Food Program)
                                      Meeting Notes
                                 Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Participants:
Working Group Members: Dawn Beck, Colleen Paulus, Mark Clary, Mary Woodford, Pam
Steinbach, Tony Geogeson
Steering Committee Members: Lars Johnson, Laura Scheinoha
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Jennifer Miller, Mike Kaluzniak
Guests: Christine Oliver (MDH – EHD:DWP:NPWS)


   1. Greetings, updates, and “housekeeping”

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, and then attendees introduced
themselves.

Updates
    CP conveyed an update from Serena Vergin, who was not able to attend today’s meeting.
      Serena has accepted a position with AFSCME Union, and is no longer at Countryside
      Public Health. She is still very much interested in staying “on-board” until the Working
      Group’s charge is complete.
    CP told the Working Group that efforts have been underway at MDH to incorporate the
      data sharing concepts that have been the focus of Working Group’s discussions. She
      asked MDH staff to describe some of those efforts:
       David Wulff (DW) reported on efforts to incorporate data element definitions set
          forth by the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) into the food program
          licensing and inspection and enforcement data management practices currently used
          by MDH. Out of the 170 data elements that have been identified by the Working
          Group as being valuable to share on a statewide basis, all but 6 are included in MDH
          databases (either those currently in use, or planned for use in the near future). For
          some data elements captured by the MDH databases, extrapolation would need to be
          performed to fully match value sets included in the data dictionary; such extrapolation
          for the most part would be a simple process.
       Mike Kaluzniak (MK) reported that MDH recently requested information from local
          partners necessary to administer the statewide food and lodging safety information
          security system (system that is maintained by the Statewide Hospitality Fee). The
          data requested included approximately 50 of the 170 EHKMP (Food Program) data
          elements. Mary Woodford asked that the materials sent out to local partner agencies
          and discussed by Mike be forwarded on to Working Group members. The responses
          to this request did not include many of these elements and it will take time to update
          data collection programs to provide all the required data.
       CP and MK talked about the draft Delegation Agreement (DA) for Environmental
          Health Services to replace the Agreement in place since 1987, and the requirements
          pertaining to data collection / sharing that are included in the draft DA; a handout
          showing these requirements (Section 4.2 D (2) and Section 4.2 I (3)) was provided to
          meeting attendees.
Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-32
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
      Laura Scheinhoa reported that Olmsted County has also been working on incorporating
       the data element definitions set forth by the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program),
       and now has a new license application that captures EHKMP (Food Program) data
       elements. She will share that application with the group so that they can see how
       licensure data elements have been incorporated into a working document.

   2. Draft Action Plan documents not previously reviewed – discussion and consensus
      decisions

This agenda item began with a discussion of Working Group’s general impression of the draft
Action Plan. Themes that emerged from this discussion follow:
    There is a huge amount of information contained within the overall Action Plan; the shear
       volume of materials may discourage persons from reading and implementing Action Plan
       recommendations.
    The group recommended that there be fewer Attachments to the Action Plan, and that
       some content changes be made so as to reduce the volume of Action Plan Attachments
       (see item 3 of these notes for further information).
    There is a disconnect between the Logic Model as it currently exists and the data sharing
       improvement strategies, recommendations, and action steps listed in the Action Plan (see
       item 3 of these notes for further information).

The Working Group then moved on to review Attachment N (Recommendations and Suggested
Action Steps). They discussed each strategy, recommendation, and action step, and reached
agreement on all revisions to be incorporated in Attachment N. Global changes that will be
made to Attachment N include the following:
     The heading “Short-Term Action Steps for Emergency Preparedness” will be changed to
       “Short-Term Action Steps for Data Sharing” throughout the document.
     The heading “Long-Term Action Steps” will be changed to “Long-Term Action Steps for
       Data Sharing” throughout the document.
     Underneath the revised heading “Short-Term Action Steps for Data Sharing”, the
       wording “…during an emergency event” will be changed to “…, such as during an
       emergency event” throughout the document.
     Underneath the revised heading “Short-Term Action Steps for Data Sharing”, the
       wording “The Republican National Convention (RNC) will serve as a pilot for
       implementing this action step.” will be changed to “The Republican National Convention
       (RNC) will serve as a pilot for testing this action step.” throughout the document.

Other revisions will be made to Attachment N in accordance with the changes requested by the
Working Group. All changes made to Attachment N will be incorporated into the main body of
the “EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 - Food Program” document underneath the heading “Data
Sharing Improvement Strategies”.




Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-33
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
     3. Discussion and consensus decisions regarding other draft Action Plan documents

The Working Group made decisions regarding the need for inclusion of documents listed as
Attachments to the draft Action Plan (April 2007: Version 2007.4). The outcome of this
discussion follows:

     Current Attachments to the draft Action Plan             Decision Made by the EHKMP
              (April 2007: Version 2007.4)                   Working Group (Food Program)
A.   Roadmap for Action                                     Change to “Supporting Document”
B.   EHKMP Steering Committee Members                       Include in “Acknowledgements”
C.   Background Information Regarding Food Program          Change to “Supporting Document”
     Goals Selected for the EHKMP
D.   EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) Members             Include in “Acknowledgements”
E.   EHKMP Focus Group (Food Program) Members               Include in “Acknowledgements”
F.   Draft Glossary of EHKMP Terms                          Change to “Supporting Document”
G.   Working Groups Membership and Charge                   Change to “Supporting Document”
H.   EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) Meeting             Change to “Supporting Document”
     Notes
I.   Information Sharing Benefits, Expectations and         Keep as an “Attachment”; no
     Regulatory Tools Used by Environmental Health          revisions needed.
J.   Draft EHKMP Logic Model – Food Program                 Keep as an “Attachment”; revisions
                                                            needed (see below).
K. Draft EHKMP Data Flow Diagrams - Food Program            Keep as an “Attachment”; no
                                                            revisions needed.
L. Data Dictionary Terminology Discussion – Food            Change to “Supporting Document”
   Program
M Draft EHKMP Data Dictionary - Food Program                Keep as an “Attachment”; revisions
.  Licensure, Inspection, and Enforcement Data              needed (see below).
N. Recommendations and Suggested Action Steps               Keep as an “Attachment”; revisions
                                                            needed (see item 2 of these notes for
                                                            further information regarding
                                                            revisions needed).

The Working Group made final recommendations for changes to some of the documents that
would be retained as Attachments to the draft Action Plan; requested changes follow:

        Attachment J - Draft EHKMP Logic Model – Food Program
          The existing Logic Model should be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that
             it is reflective of the outcomes that will result from the implementation of
             recommendations and long-term action steps contained in Attachment N.
          An additional Logic Model should be created that will be reflective of the outcomes
             that will result from the implementation of recommendations and short-term action
             steps contained in Attachment N.
        Attachment M - Draft EHKMP Data Dictionary - Food Program Licensure, Inspection,
         and Enforcement Data

Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-34
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9
        The ordering of data elements should be changed so that items are grouped together
         as information derived from data elements would flow. In other words, rather than
         alphabetically listing the data elements, group the data elements by “theme”, or as
         information would be listed on a form used to collect data.
        Revert back to the use of separate dictionaries for data uniquely associated with
         licensure, inspection, and enforcement regulatory activities.
        Create a new data dictionary that will contain data elements that are universally
         applicable, regardless of the regulatory activity being described.
        If possible, shorten definitions to make the dictionaries more user friendly.
        The inspection data dictionary data elements that reference CFP control and
         prevention measures should be reviewed and revised to ensure that the data collected
         will be limited to measuring compliance with MN Food Code sections that relate to
         risk factors and not compliance with all applicable items in the MN Food Code.
        The inspection data dictionary will no longer include the data element pertaining to
         smoking status, as the Freedom to Breathe Act was signed into law today.

   4. Next Steps

MDH staff will revise draft Action Plan documents as described above; revisions will be
completed and distributed to Working Group for their review.

The Working Group members present at today’s meeting made the decision that they would like
to meet again on June 7, 2007. The agenda for that meeting will be as follows:

           •   Review revisions made to Data Dictionaries entries.
           •   Look at an example license application that captures EHKMP (Food Program)
               data elements.
           •   Reach consensus on all Action Plan documents
           •   Make decisions regarding process to be followed in gathering Focus Group
               feedback, and in presenting final Action Plan documents to the Steering
               Committee.

The meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2007 will be held in the Bur Oak Room from 9:30 a.m. –
noon.




Meeting ended at noon                                               Prepared by Jennifer Miller



Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-35
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
                          EH Knowledge Management Project
                           Working Group (Food Program)
                                   Meeting Notes
                                    Thursday, June 7, 2007

Participants:
Working Group Members: Ben Miller, Dawn Beck, Colleen Paulus, Mark Clary, Mary
Woodford, Pam Steinbach, Tony Geogeson
Steering Committee Members: Lars Johnson
MDH Staff: David Wulff, Jennifer Miller
Guests: Jerry Smith (MDH – EHD:DWP:NPWS)


   1. Greetings, updates, and “housekeeping”

Colleen Paulus (CP) welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, and then moved on to updates.

Updates
    CP conveyed the news that Chris Forslund will be leaving MDH’s Partnership and
      Workforce Development Unit, as has accepted a position with the City of St. Cloud.
    David Wulff (DW) reported that he had briefed Wendy Nelson (MDH’s Chief
      Information Officer) on the progress that has been made by the EHKMP Working Group
      (Food Program), and that she was impressed by the accomplishments reached thus far
      (particularly the achievement of reaching agreement on definitions for 170 data
      elements). He also told the group about a new project that is being funded by the Robert
      J. Wood Foundation that will mirror some of the tasks undertaken by the EHKMP
      Working Group (Food Program) … namely the creation/updating of dictionaries for data
      collected throughout the MDH; Wendy Nelson is heading up this project, and so she has
      an additional incentive to take note of the lessons being learned from the EHKMP.
    Jennifer Miller (JM) shared that John Stine presented an EHKMP update to MN-PHIN
      during a meeting of that group last week; their interest in the project continues to be keen,
      and they were complimentary of the progress made to date. She also reported that she and
      Laura Scheinhoa will be giving an EHKMP update at the 2007 Community Health
      Conference. One of the main points to be made during the presentation will be the value
      of having common definitions when it comes time to share and use data.

Meeting Notes: The Meeting Notes for May 16, 2007 were approved by the Working Group.

   2. Revisions to draft Action Plan documents – discussion and consensus decisions

JM highlighted the revisions that were incorporated into the EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food
Program; revisions were made based on direction received during the May 16, 2007 meeting of
the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program). Consensus was reached on the content of the
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program as follows:
     The content of the Acknowledgements, Executive Summary, Table of Contents,
      Attachments A – C, and Supporting Documents 1 – 7 was approved without need for
      further changes.

Minnesota Department of Health                                                          Page SD5-36
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                  September 2007: Version 2007.9
      Minor revisions to the main body of the EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program
       will be made to reflect the outcome of today’s discussion as follows:

       Attachment D – Draft EHKMP Data Dictionary - Food Program Licensure Data
            Certified food manager data elements will be moved to Attachment E (Inspection
             Data Dictionary).
            A data element will be added to capture “Previous owner name if not an
             individual”.
            “Agency Contact – Name” and “Agency Contact – Phone” data elements will be
             deleted.
            A data element will be added to capture “Agency Phone”.
            A data element will be added to capture “Agency Code”; the value options for
             this data element are provided in Attachment 1 of the EHKMP Data Dictionaries.
            The definition of the “Food Establishment License Number” data element will be
             changed as follows: “The unique number associated with the license issued to the
             food establishment; expressed as #########”.

       Supporting Document 7 (EHKMP License Application Template)
           Title of Supporting Document 7 will be changed to “EHKMP Example License
             Application Template – Food Establishment”
           Box in upper right hand corner marked “For Office Use Only” will not be used to
             capture any EHKMP data elements; the box will be for individual agencies to use
             as they wish.
           Under the heading “Reason for Application”, a slot for “Previous owner name if
             not an individual” will be added and linked to an EHKMP data element.
           Under the heading “Owner Information”, a slot for “Do you own more than 1
             food establishment?” will be added, with a yes/no response; this will not be linked
             to an EHKMP data element.
           The heading “Certified Fool Manager” will be changed to “Certified Food
             Manager (if required)”. The CFM information captured underneath this heading
             will remain intact; however it will not be linked to an EHKMP data element. The
             blue box and its content that appears underneath this heading will be deleted.
           On the page marked “For Office Use Only, the following changes will be made:
                 o Underneath the heading “Agency Information”, the slot for “Agency
                     contact name” and corresponding EHKMP data elements, along with the
                     slot for “Agency contact phone” and corresponding EHKMP data element,
                     will be deleted.
                 o Underneath the heading “Agency Information”, a slot for “Agency Code”
                     will be added; it will be linked to an EHKMP data element.
                 o Underneath the heading “Other Food Establishment Information”, a slot
                     for “Date food establishment was given approval to open” will be added; it
                     will be linked to the “Food Establishment Opening Date” data element.

       Attachment E - Draft EHKMP Data Dictionary - Food Program Inspection Data
            A data element will be added to capture “Agency Code”; the value options for
             this data element are provided in Attachment 1 of the EHKMP Data Dictionaries.


Minnesota Department of Health                                                       Page SD5-37
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                               September 2007: Version 2007.9
            The definition of the Food Establishment License Number will be changed as
             follows: “The unique number associated with the license issued to the food
             establishment; expressed as #########”.
            Certified food manager data elements moved from Attachment D will be added to
             this data dictionary.
            The “Time In” data element will be renamed “Time of Inspection”; the definition
             will remain unchanged.
            The “Time Out” data element will be deleted.
            All references to CFP control and prevention measures will be removed from the
             data dictionary.
            Within the main body of the EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program, and
             under the section heading “Some Additional Notes Regarding the Data
             Dictionaries”, it will be noted that the statewide sharing of food establishment
             inspection data is to be limited to only data collected during complete inspections
             (either announced or unannounced) of food establishments. This same notation
             will be included as a footnote to the data dictionary.
            Definitions for the following data elements were revised so as to ensure that the
             data collected will be limited to measuring compliance with MN Food Code
             sections that relate to risk factors and not compliance with all applicable items in
             the MN Food Code.

       Data Element                                    Definition

   Risk Factor Information – Employee Health
   Employee Health –        The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Awareness and            Chapter 4626, part number .0040; values include “IN”
   Policy – Compliance      (indicating in compliance) or “OUT” (indicating out of
   Status                   compliance).

   Employee Health –        The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Proper Reporting         Chapter 4626, part numbers .0045, .0055, and .0060; values
   and Actions –            include “IN” (indicating in compliance) or “OUT” (indicating
   Compliance Status        out of compliance).
   Risk Factor Information – Hand Hygiene
   Hand Hygiene –           The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Proper Provisions –      Chapter 4626, part numbers .1070, .1095, .1110, .1440, .1445,
   Compliance Status        and .1550; values include “IN” (indicating in compliance) or
                            “OUT” (indicating out of compliance).
   Risk Factor Information – Food Source and Condition
   Food Source and          The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Condition – Source       Chapter 4626, part numbers .0130 through .0160, .0175, .0180,
   of Food Rec’d –          .0185 and .0990; values include “IN” (indicating in compliance)
   Compliance Status        or “OUT” (indicating out of compliance).




Minnesota Department of Health                                                         Page SD5-38
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                 September 2007: Version 2007.9
       Data Element                                  Definition
   Food Source and         The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Condition -             Chapter 4626, part numbers .0125, .0190, and .0430; values
   Condition of Food       include “IN” (indicating in compliance) or “OUT” (indicating
   Rec’d – Compliance      out of compliance).
   Status
   Risk Factor Information – Contamination Sources
   Contamination           The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Sources: Other Foods    Chapter 4626, part numbers .0235, .0270, and .0330; values
   – Protection from       include “IN” (indicating in compliance), “OUT” (indicating out
   Cross                   of compliance), or “NA” (meaning not applicable).
   Contamination –
   Compliance Status
   Contamination           The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   Sources: Food           Chapter 4626, part numbers .0790, .0795, .0805, .0840, .0845,
   Contact Surfaces –      .0850, .0895, .0900, and .0905; values include “IN” (indicating
   Cleaning and            in compliance), “OUT” (indicating out of compliance), or “NA”
   Sanitizing –            (meaning not applicable).
   Compliance Status
   Risk Factor Information – Food Time and Temperature
   Food Time and Temp      The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   – Proper for            Chapter 4626, part numbers .0245, .0340, and .0345; values
   Cooking –               include “IN” (indicating in compliance), “OUT” (indicating out
   Compliance Status       of compliance), “NA” (meaning not applicable), or “NO”
                           (meaning not observed).
   Food Time and Temp      The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   – Proper for Hot        Chapter 4626, part number .0395; values include “IN”
   Holding –               (indicating in compliance), “OUT” (indicating out of
   Compliance Status       compliance), “NA” (meaning not applicable), or “NO”
                           (meaning not observed).
   Food Time and Temp      The status of a food establishment’s compliance with MN Rules,
   – Proper for Cold       Chapter 4626, part number .0395; values include “IN”
   Holding –               (indicating in compliance), “OUT” (indicating out of
   Compliance Status       compliance), or “NA” (meaning not applicable).

       Attachment F - Draft EHKMP Data Dictionary - Food Program Enforcement Data
            A data element will be added to capture “Agency Code”; the value options for
             this data element are provided in Attachment 1 of the EHKMP Data Dictionaries.
            The definition of the Food Establishment License Number will be changed as
             follows: “The unique number associated with the license issued to the food
             establishment; expressed as #########”.
            Data elements will be added to capture “Enforcement Tools – Administrative”
             information.
            Data elements will be added to capture “Enforcement Tools – Other” information.


Minnesota Department of Health                                                      Page SD5-39
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                              September 2007: Version 2007.9
   3. Next Steps

MDH staff will revise draft Action Plan documents as described above. A June 2007: Version
2007.6 issuance of all draft Action Plan documents will be posted to the EHKMP web site that
has been used for reviewing draft documents. MDH staff will work toward having all revised
documents posted to this site no later than June 18, 2007.

Persons who indicated in 2006 that they were interested in serving on an EHKMP Focus Group
(Food Program) will be invited to review and offer feedback on the documents posted to this site;
the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) will also be invited to review and provide any
additional comments they may have regarding draft Action Plan documents.

Feedback received from the Focus Group will be shared with the EHKMP Working Group (Food
Program). The EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) will be asked to provide direction for
any further revisions to Action Plan documents that they deem to be warranted.

Once any final revisions requested by the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) have been
made, the Action Plan documents will be presented to the Steering Committee.

For now, no further meetings of the EHKMP Working Group (Food Program) have been
scheduled.

A huge thank you to the members of the EHKMP Working Group (Food
Program) for their commitment to this project!




Meeting ended at 12:30 p.m.                                          Prepared by Jennifer Miller




Minnesota Department of Health                                                        Page SD5-40
EHKMP Action Plan: Part 1 – Food Program                                September 2007: Version 2007.9

								
To top