Loading...
Publication
Estudo de fatores de risco associados ao sistema HACCP em restauração: Estudo de caso; Validação do Ponto Crítico de Controlo - Confeção e Regeneração
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.86 MB | Adobe PDF |
Abstract(s)
A utilização dos SGSA, vieram facilitar a gestão de riscos e têm como função o autocontrolo, baseiam-se em avaliar e monitorizar as etapas do processamento dos alimentos, consideradas críticas, para a segurança dos mesmos. Neste sentido os pontos críticos de controlo (PCC’s) devem ser validados e adaptados a cada realidade, pois o principal perigo do sistema HACCP é a chamada “ilusão do controlo”.
Este trabalho é apoiado numa questão principal: “Qual a melhor forma de controlar o PCC confeção/regeneração?”. Utilizando o estudo observacional direto de temperaturas após confeção/regeneração, aliado à metodologia extensiva quantitativa, através de um questionário efetuado aos manipuladores, foi possível desenvolver este trabalho de acordo com os objetivos propostos. Realizou-se um estudo de caso em 5 estabelecimentos da área da hotelaria/restauração, avaliando 5 preparações culinárias.
Recolheram-se 33 amostras distribuídas do seguinte modo: 11 (33,3%) de arroz de pato; 4 (12,1%) de lasanha (de carne bovino); 6 (18,2%) de empadão (de atum ou carne bovino); 8 (24,2%) de rolo de carne (bovino ou aves) e 4 (12,1%) de bacalhau c/natas.
Para o tratamento de dados utilizou-se o programa informático SPSS, versão 22.0, onde se pôde observar que, 3,03% (n = 1) das amostras são consideradas não satisfatórias, 30,30% (n = 10) encontraram-se no nível aceitável e as restantes 66,67% (n = 22) estão no nível satisfatório, de acordo com os valores guia do INSA. O PCC confeção/regeneração, não é validado em 66,67% (n = 22) das amostras, por não terem
cumprido pelo menos um dos requisitos para a validação (temperatura final <75ºC e teores microbiológicos ≥102 ufc/g). Obtivemos uma dispersão dos resultados muito elevada, isto porque o desvio-padrão para microrganismos a 30ºC, correspondeu a 3,63x103 ufc/g, e de 16,87ºC, para a temperatura final atingida. Observou-se que a zona ideal para verificação do PCC é o centro térmico do tabuleiro (Ponto C), por ser o ponto mais frio, sendo que os resultados dos questionários mostram que apesar de existir ações de formação, os temas da verificação e validação de PCC’s são negligenciados.
Concluímos que apesar da amostra utilizada não ser representativa, existem fatores de risco pouco controlados, o que seria colmatado com formação mais especifica e a introdução dos manipuladores em todo o sistema HACCP. Existem poucos trabalhos desta natureza, pelo que seria importante no futuro perceber se existe uma evolução positiva em relação aos conhecimentos e práticas na verificação e validação de PCC’s.
The use of the Quality Management Systems, came to facilitate the risk management and have the function of self-control, based on assessing and monitoring the food processing stages considered critical for the safety. For that matter the critical control points (CCPs) must be validated and adapted to each case, because the main danger of the HACCP system is named "the control illusion". This work is based on a key question: "What is the best way to control the CCP cooking/reheating?". By using a direct observational study temperatures after cooking/reheating, combined with an extensive quantitative methodology and using a questionnaire made to the food handlers, it was possible to develop this work according to the proposed objectives. A case study was made in 5 hotels/catering establishments, evaluating 5 culinary preparations. Were collected 33 food samples, distributed in the following way: 11 (33,3%) of duck rice; 4 (12,1%) of lasagne (beef); 6 (18,2%) of pie (tuna or beef); 8 (24,2%) of meat roll (beef or poultry) and 4 (12,1%) of cod with cream. For statistical treatment of the study data the SPSS, version 22.0 was used. Where can be observed that 3,03% (n = 1) of the samples are considered not satisfactory, 30,30% (n = 10) met the acceptable level and the remaining 66,67% (n = 22) are in satisfactory level, according to the values guide of INSA. The CCP cooking/reheating is not valid in 66,67% (n = 22) of the samples, because they did not reach at least one of the validation requirements (final temperature <75ºC and microbiological contents ≥102 cfu/g). We obtained a very high results dispersion, because the standard deviation for microorganisms at 30ºC corresponded to 3,63x103 cfu/g and 16,87ºC for the final temperature reached. It was observed that the ideal zone to verify the CCP is the thermal centre of the trail (Point C), because it is que coolest point and the results of the questionnaires shows that despite there being training sessions performed, the issues of verification and validation of CCPs are neglected. We conclude that although the sample used in this study is not representative, there are poorly controlled risk factors, which would be filled by more specific training and the introduction of manipulators around the HACCP system. There are only a few studies of this nature, so it would be important in the future to understand if there is a positive trend in the relation to knowledge and practices in checking and CCPs validation.
The use of the Quality Management Systems, came to facilitate the risk management and have the function of self-control, based on assessing and monitoring the food processing stages considered critical for the safety. For that matter the critical control points (CCPs) must be validated and adapted to each case, because the main danger of the HACCP system is named "the control illusion". This work is based on a key question: "What is the best way to control the CCP cooking/reheating?". By using a direct observational study temperatures after cooking/reheating, combined with an extensive quantitative methodology and using a questionnaire made to the food handlers, it was possible to develop this work according to the proposed objectives. A case study was made in 5 hotels/catering establishments, evaluating 5 culinary preparations. Were collected 33 food samples, distributed in the following way: 11 (33,3%) of duck rice; 4 (12,1%) of lasagne (beef); 6 (18,2%) of pie (tuna or beef); 8 (24,2%) of meat roll (beef or poultry) and 4 (12,1%) of cod with cream. For statistical treatment of the study data the SPSS, version 22.0 was used. Where can be observed that 3,03% (n = 1) of the samples are considered not satisfactory, 30,30% (n = 10) met the acceptable level and the remaining 66,67% (n = 22) are in satisfactory level, according to the values guide of INSA. The CCP cooking/reheating is not valid in 66,67% (n = 22) of the samples, because they did not reach at least one of the validation requirements (final temperature <75ºC and microbiological contents ≥102 cfu/g). We obtained a very high results dispersion, because the standard deviation for microorganisms at 30ºC corresponded to 3,63x103 cfu/g and 16,87ºC for the final temperature reached. It was observed that the ideal zone to verify the CCP is the thermal centre of the trail (Point C), because it is que coolest point and the results of the questionnaires shows that despite there being training sessions performed, the issues of verification and validation of CCPs are neglected. We conclude that although the sample used in this study is not representative, there are poorly controlled risk factors, which would be filled by more specific training and the introduction of manipulators around the HACCP system. There are only a few studies of this nature, so it would be important in the future to understand if there is a positive trend in the relation to knowledge and practices in checking and CCPs validation.
Description
Keywords
risk factors validation CCP cooking HACCP restaurants fatores de risco validação PPC confeção restauração