Prioritise inspections using documented criteria
Combine inherent risk and establishment performance to obtain an indicative priority, identify the main contributors and explain the intensity of oversight.
Inherent risk
Potential for harm associated with foods, processes, scale and exposed populations, before considering the effectiveness of controls.
| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Severity and likelihoodMagnitude of harm and likelihood of relevant hazards. | ||
| Food and processTreatments, survival or growth, and subsequent handling. | ||
| Volume and exposureProduction volume, consumption frequency and reach. | ||
| Vulnerable populationChildren, older people, immunocompromised individuals or other susceptible groups. | ||
| Distribution and reachLocal, regional, national or complex distribution chains. |
Performance and control
Here, 0 represents strong controls and 4 poor performance or insufficient evidence. A higher score increases priority.
| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance historyFindings, recurrence and trends from previous inspections. | ||
| Preventive controlsDesign, implementation, monitoring and verification. | ||
| Incidents and alertsOutbreaks, recalls, complaints or adverse analytical results. | ||
| Corrective responseTimeliness, effectiveness and documented closure of actions. | ||
| Traceability and data qualityAvailability, currency and reliability of information. |
Weights must be between 0 and 100, with at least one positive weight per dimension. Zero excludes a criterion; do not use it to hide missing evidence. Initial scores of 2 are demonstration values, not an assessment. Replace them with documented evidence.
Priority
Interpretation
Frequency and depth:
Main contributors
Assessment inputs and contributions
Result generated using an illustrative model: 60% inherent risk + 40% performance/control. Always check mandatory minimums, exceptional events and data quality. A score is not a probability of harm.
A transparent and adaptable model
Each dimension is a weighted average on a 0–4 scale. Weights are automatically normalised within each dimension; they do not have to sum to 100.
- Low: below 1.50.
- Medium: from 1.50 to below 2.75.
- High: 2.75 or above.
The thresholds are illustrative. Before institutional use, document, validate and review them using historical data and the objectives of the relevant inspection framework.
Main contributors are ranked by their normalised contribution to the combined score, including the 60/40 dimension weighting. Displayed scores are rounded; classification uses the unrounded score.