Welcome to the UKFSS Documentation
FSSUK – Enhanced OutcomesGuidanceDocumentVersion 2 – October 2010
Preface
The ability to designate whether a sample has been judged to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory and to record some information as to why it has been considered to be unsatisfactory has been part of FSSUK since its inception. Indeed, this facility has been part of LIMS systems such as that provided by AIS-Lims for even longer.
By 2008 it was becoming clear that the amount of information being recorded on samples was not sufficient to allow searches of data to be made with sufficient simplicity and sophistication to allow FSSUK to provide the information that was required. A review1 of what had become known as the
“Outcomes Process” was carried out and it was concluded that considerably more information on what samples had been analysed or examined for, whether they had been found to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory and if they were judged to be unsatisfactory, more detailed information on what was wrong was required.
It was recognised from the beginning that if the “Enhanced Outcomes Process” was to be workable and acceptable to laboratory staff much of the information would require to be allocated automatically through the Lims system with only the small amount of outcomes relating to unsatisfactory samples being set manually. In order to establish whether the Enhanced Outcomes Process would work in practice it was decided to upgrade the process as implemented in AIS-Lims and trial it in the four Scottish Public Analyst laboratories. As part of the implementation it was accepted that rather than allocate outcomes at sample level it was more practical to allocate them at individual determination level; consideration of labelling information was still retained at sample level as was a final satisfactory / unsatisfactory designation at sample level.
Although some minor issues were identified during the trial and detailed in the report2 on it, it was accepted by the Public Analysts and other laboratory staff that the Enhanced Outcomes Process was workable and the additional time required to collect the information on unsatisfactory samples was balanced out by the time saved in not having to manually allocate outcomes to satisfactory ones.
One of the issues raised during the trial was the need to produce a guidance document so as clarify why a particular outcome should be allocated in a particular circumstance. Whilst such guidance would help to provide clarity and consistency across FSSUK it must be recognised that it remains voluntary and is not seeking to impose anything on individual Public Analysts, Food Examiners and others reporting on food enforcement samples.