{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023540489642184557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009887005649717515, 'mean_word_length': 5.343283582089552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Experiences and perceptions of secondary food hygiene training: A preliminary study of five larger catering companies in south east Wales

Aims: Food safety training has a high UK profile, although this is mainly concerned with initial training at levels 1—4. Regular secondary hygiene training (collectively refresher, remedial, update training or retraining) for food handlers is recommended by the Catering Industry Guide, although the subject is relatively understudied. The aim of the present work was to determine the beliefs, mode and experiences of secondary training, especially refresher training, in five larger south east Wales catering businesses. Methods: Construction, piloting and distribution of a questionnaire (n = 100) followed by descriptive statistical analysis. Results: A 70% response rate was obtained covering five large catering operations. All had received secondary hygiene training. This training did not appear to be directly related to specific work performance. The duration of this training ranged from 20 minutes to six hours and the frequency from six months to every three years. The majority (94%) agreed that regular secondary training was beneficial and that it could be applied in their work (81%). The content of secondary training varied from a repeat of the initial hygiene course to selected topics deemed relevant to the needs of the employees and the businesses. The majority of refresher training was delivered by conventional classroom instruction but some businesses made use of more informal methods. Trainees estimated that they have only forgotten 10% of their initial training, 63% believed that the best way to refresh their knowledge was to repeat the course and 94% welcomed new information. Most (77%) felt that this training should be tested/examined. Reaction evaluations of secondary training were collected by most businesses and training records were maintained by all. Conclusions: Secondary training was valued by food handlers. The content and methods of delivering secondary training were more varied and were relatively conservative in format and approach.