MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA A report of work conducted in project MC1001 in 2010 (VLA project code FS245001) 1 1 2 Eamon Watson , Elizabeth Marier and Jon Weston DOCUMENT HISTORY Version Date Comments 1.0 Working report 29/10/2010 Working report for first review. All recommendations are provisional. 2.0 Final report 24/12/2010 Final report. 2.1 Final report 02/02/2011 Final report following FSA review and minor revision. 2.2 Final report 13/05/2011 Link to full data reports in Annex C added and correction to project coding (MC1001). 1 CERA 4 2 CERA 3 Page 1 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 3 Section 1: Background 4 Outline of the study 4 Abattoirs in Great Britain 5 FSA regions 6 List of conditions 6 Data management 6 Section 2: Review of data quality 8 Methodology 8 Abattoir visits 8 Understanding data management 9 Overview of sample dataset 10 Observations on data quality 12 Section 3: Review of list of conditions 26 Section 4: Identifying gaps 31 Denominators and geo-location 31 Case studies 32 Opportunities for using the data 35 Section 5: Discussion and Recommendations 41 Annexes Annex A Acknowledgements 46 Annex B Summary of data extract 47 Annex C1 Summary of data reports 48 Annex D Proposed list of ante mortem inspection conditions 60 Annex E Proposed list of post mortem inspection conditions 80 Annex F A short history of meat inspection in Great Britain 61 1 As at 13/05/2011, the full set of data reports presented in Annex C are available from this link: http://vla.defra.gov.uk/reports/rep_rev_ampm_data.htm. Please note that this link may be subject to change in the future. If this occurs then a revised report with an updated link will be provided. Page 2 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report reviews the data that are collected during ante mortem and post mortem inspection at abattoirs in Great Britain. During the course of this work we visited abattoirs to understand how the data are collected and visited FSA York offices to understand how the information is managed. We were provided with a data extract to help us to further explore the data. Integral to this, we reviewed the list of conditions that were being used at ante mortem and post mortem inspection. This was done with the assistance of stakeholders. From these components we were able to draw together observations on data quality, identify where there were gaps in the data and explore opportunities for use of the data. At the outset, we would like to recognise the efforts that go into the collection of the data. The requirement for data recording at the abattoir is well embedded in the inspection procedure. It is also important to note that at the time of this review data systems were in a transitional state, with the recent introduction of a new Next Generation AM/PM system to manage data from pigs and poultry. Currently, the accuracy of data is compromised through variation in the recording of conditions at the animal level and the expression of a clear denominator. There is also the need for an administrative layer to remove complexity and check for consistency before data can be used more widely. It is recognised that many of the issues we identify in this report are in the process of being addressed as the Next Generation AM/PM system extends to cover cattle and sheep. We have made recommendations that we feel are practical and constructive with the objective of gaining maximum value from the data. A full discussion with recommendations is given in Section 5, but in short, we make the following recommendations: • FSA should actively promote the availability of ante mortem and post mortem inspection data. • The list of conditions must be reviewed regularly to ensure it is workable. The matrix of conditions and body parts, where appropriate, must be as concise as possible. • It is important to define the working process to add clarity for the recording of data for each species. • The data need to be described in a way that points out any limitations. • CCIR data should be promoted and developed across all the livestock sectors. • There needs to be a clear program for the longer term development of data systems management. Finally, during the course of this work it has become apparent that there are many stakeholders with an active interest in this data. There are considerable opportunities for FSA to engage with stakeholders and develop the contribution this data can make to protecting animal health – both at the farm level and to complement national disease surveillance. Page 3 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT SECTION 1: BACKGROUND Outline of the study 1.1. This report is the deliverable from the work undertaken in project MC1001. The scope of the work was to; review the recording of conditions at ante and post mortem inspection, to assess the fitness for purpose of these data, and to provide recommendations as appropriate. A schematic of the project is shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 Schematic outline of the study 1.1 Understand FSA 1.2 Define, by (formerly MHS) data species, disease collection conditions to record procedures, forms (i.e. define current anddocumentation. data needs). Milestone 1 Deliverable 1 2.1 Appraise 2.2 Extract and methods for data collate historic ante collection. mortem and post mortem data. 3.1 Evaluate data 3.2 Identify data quality issues and gaps. variation in data quality. Milestone 2 4.1 Final report. Milestone 3 Deliverable 2 1.2. The report does not include a comprehensive literature review of the subject, but where appropriate, references to previously published work have been used to illustrate key points. 1.3. Work began in March 2010 and was completed in December 2010. Progress summary reports were provided during the course of the work. The key time points are summarised in Table 1.1. Page 4 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT Table 1.1 Summary of study progress Date Actions March 2010 Contract documents completed. Request FSA assistance for abattoir visits and data extract. Copies of forms provided and list of conditions extracted. May 2010 Expert review of conditions in progress. Liaise with FSA to provide historic data extract. July 2010 Visits to seven abattoirs completed. Expert review of conditions in progress. Attend BPEX health information workshop re: pig conditions. Attend FSA FCI/CCIR cattle and sheep stakeholder meeting. Data extract received from FSA. Review of data quality in progress. October 2010 Visit to FSA York for revised dataset. Working report in preparation, to include: review of conditions, revised conditions list, appraisal of historic data, listing of data quality issues and provisional recommendations. Working report submitted 29/10/10. November 2010 Working report presentation to FSA for discussion and review. December 2010 Visit to FSA York for review of working report. Final report completed following FSA feedback on working report and CVI, Wageningen consultancy. Abattoirs in Great Britain 1.4. There are many abattoirs in operation in Great Britain (GB). Table 1.2 gives a breakdown of abattoirs in GB. It is important to note that many abattoirs will kill more than one species and therefore may be counted more than once. Table 1.2 Number of abattoirs in GB (July 2010)2 England Scotland Wales GB Ungulates Cattle 183 28 23 234 Goats 135 21 18 174 Sheep 180 30 25 235 Pigs 131 25 16 172 Other farmed 99 26 5 130 mammals; deer, wild boar, bison Poultry Poultry 75 7a 4 86 Small Game Wild birds 42 12 - 54 Wild lagomorphs 43 10 - 53 Large Game Wild ungulates 40 19 1 60 TOTAL abattoirsb 383 65 32 480 a Two are “on farm slaughter” facilities b Many abattoirs will handle than one species. 1.5. There is variation in how abattoirs collate data, but generally daily totals are collated locally before being sent weekly to FSA York. Traditionally this has taken the format of paper records being posted and manually entered onto the database at FSA York. With the phased introduction of the new Next Generation AM/PM system, data recording and transfer of totals will be done daily and electronically in eligible plants. 2 Data for this table has been derived from: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/meatplantsprems/meatpremlicence Page 5 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT FSA regions 1.6. There are 12 defined FSA business areas and 37 sub-business areas covering GB. These business areas or sub-business areas are not directly comparable with Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS). However postal code reference for each abattoir can be used to allocate NUTS region(s). 1.7. One point to note is that the abattoir postal code is the final destination of the animal and does not refer to the last premise the animal was kept. List of conditions 1.8. The list of conditions has evolved from the early days of meat inspection, through the introduction of a computerised recording system in 2006, to the current listings used today. The most recent and significant development in the listing of conditions follows the implementation of Food Chain Information (FCI) and with it the Collection and Communication of Inspection Results (CCIR). FCI refers to information that might affect the process in the abattoir (for example, medicine withdrawal periods) and the producer must make this information available to the Food Business Operator (FBO). CCIR refers to the data on conditions recorded during abattoir inspection and must be reported to the producer. This is in response to EU regulations; 853/2004 (FCI) and 854/2004 (CCIR), which came into force on 1 January 2006. A short history of meat inspection in GB is summarised in Annex F. 1.9. In GB, implementation is a phased process, during which time the FSA, formerly Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) has worked with the industry and other stakeholders to develop new condition headings under which the inspection results will be recorded. Critically this has two aims3; • “…gathering information and reporting it in a form which will be of maximum benefit for all – slaughterhouse operators, pig producers and their vets”, and • “…better methods of recording inspection results will permit improved analysis for disease surveillance purposes.” Data management 1.10. Historically data collection and reporting has been paper based, with records being transferred into a central database. This is still largely the case for non pig and poultry species. For the purposes of this report, the paper based working process will be referred to as the ‘AM/PM system’. In practice, CCIR for the FBO and producer has been available for all species since 2006 using these paper based reports. 1.11. However, to make the process of handling FCI and CCIR more efficient there has been a requirement for an additional Information Technology (IT) system. The response to this has been the introduction of a new Next Generation AM/PM system. We understand that the Next Generation AM/PM 3 http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fcipigletterscot071113.pdf Page 6 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT system was built to a detailed specification provided by FSA using a commercial IT application. Further details of the application are available directly from Rosie Ripley, IT department, FSA (personal communication). 1.12. Currently the provision of FCI and CCIR electronically is in place for pigs and poultry, with planned introduction for cattle and sheep during 20011-12 (Table 1.3). For the purposes of this report, the ‘Next Generation AM/PM system’ will be used to refer to the electronic working process. Table 1.3 The phased introduction of the Next Generation AM/PM system for FCI and CCIR Species Date of Notes implementation Cattle Not implemented Planned 2011 Calves Not implemented Planned 2011 Sheep Not implemented Planned 2012 Goats Not implemented Planned 2012 Pigs August 2010 From 25/10/2010 all plants in GB are using the Next Generation AM/PM system. Poultry July 2010 From 25/07/2010 all plants in GB are using the Next Generation AM/PM system. Small Game Not defined. The introduction of the Next Generation AM/PM system is dependent on approved funding. Large Game (includes Not defined. The introduction of the Next Generation AM/PM system farmed deer) is dependent on approved funding. 1.13. The AM/PM system works on paper based forms. There are multiple forms in use to record conditions. These are summarised in Table 1.4. Table 1.4 Summary of forms for recording data Species Ante mortem: Ante mortem: Post mortem: Post mortem: daily weekly daily weekly Cattle AMI 2/5 AMI 2/6 PMI 4/1 PMI 4/9 Calves AMI 2/5 AMI 2/6 PMI 4/1 PMI 4/9 Sheep AMI 2/5 AMI 2/6 PMI 4/6 PMI 4/9 Goats AMI 2/5 AMI 2/6 PMI 4/3 PMI 4/9 Pigs (& wild boar) CIR 12/2 PMI 4/5 CIR 12/2 Avian (broilers, hens, turkeys, AMI 2/4 AMI 2/4 CIR 12/1 PMI 4/10 geese, ducks, guinea fowl and quail) Farmed deer AMI 2/5 AMI 2/6 PMI 4/2 PMI 4/9 Large wild game (deer) - - - PMI 4/12 Small wild game - - - PMI 4/12 (pheasant/grouse/partridge, pigeon, duck/snipe/other, rabbit/hare) Page 7 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT SECTION 2: REVIEW OF DATA QUALITY Methodology 2.1 The review of data quality was based on: • Semi-structured interviews during abattoir visits, • Understanding data management at FSA York, • Examination of a sample dataset, and • Knowledge from reviewer participation at workshops. Abattoir visits 2.2 Seven abattoirs were visited and these are summarised in Table 2.1. During abattoir visits the reviewers were able to hold discussions with Senior/Meat Hygiene Inspectors (S/MHIs), Official Veterinarians (OVs) and plant staff. Discussions were informal, using a semi-structured approach with a series of questions. Questions were related to: • Appraisal of local procedures (throughput, data collection and recording), • Data quality issues (recording accuracy, variation within and between plants and audit/verification procedures), • Rationale and motivation to record (current or amended list of conditions), and • Suggestions for changes in procedures to enhance accurate and complete data recording. Table 2.1 Summary of abattoir visits # Plant Category Date visited Throughput Number Data recording (estimated) of MHIs on line 1 ABP Guildford Cattle only 18/610 Cattle 150/d 5 Whiteboard to local (Surrey) (including 6 paper form to FSA Medium EW, EM, JW calves/week) form. throughput 2 Southern Red meat 21/6/10 Cattle 10- 1 Paper note (post-it or Traditional 20/week paper sheet) to FSA Meats Low throughput EW, EM, JW Pigs 70/wk forms. To Next (Sussex) Sheep 350/wk Generation AM/PM system for pigs. 3 Beesons Cattle only, incl. 24/6/10 Cattle 200/week 5 Whiteboard to local Crewe dairy cattle (OTM) paper form to FSA (Cheshire) and TB reactors EW form. Medium throughput 4 Moy Park White meat 25/6/10 Broilers 2 Local procedures Ashbourne (poultry) 580,000/week with clickers, white (Derbyshire) EW boards and paper High throughput forms. 5 Dalehead Pig only (finishing 30/06/10 Pigs 12,500/week 5 Laminated forms to Foods pigs <6 months Next Generation Spalding only) EW AM/PM system. (Lincolnshire) High throughput 6 2 Sisters Food Poultry 01/07/10 Broilers c. 6 Local procedures Group 1.7m/week with clickers, paper Scunthorpe High throughput EW forms to Next (Lincolnshire) Generation AM/PM system. 7 Vicars Game 06/07/10 Varies with 1 Day book Newbury season and type (Berkshire) Cutting plant EM of animals. Page 8 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT Understanding data management 2.3 Ante mortem and post mortem inspection data are managed by FSA in York. Staff have expertise in data systems and in the daily use of the data warehouse. 2.4 In simple terms, data are in a transitional stage from the old to Next Generation AM/PM system. This means that current and historic data for pigs and poultry are kept across the old and Next Generation AM/PM systems, and that for other species this transitional stage will follow over the next few years. This is relatively straightforward in terms of recording conditions identified at ante mortem and post mortem inspection; allowing for counts of conditions to be retrieved. Figure 2.1 provides a summary of the database chronology. Figure 2.1 Summary of FSA data collection systems from 2006. OMIS introduced in April SIR replaces OMIS for all Next Generation AM/PM 1994. This system captures species excluding pigs and system for poultry rolled data supplied on weekly poultry. Data capture out to all plants. plant returns. Includes all continues based on weekly Next Generation AM/PM species except pigs and returns. system pilot for cattle poultry. Next Generation AM/PM planned. Next Generation AM/PM system pilot for poultry system pilot for sheep starts. Data entered at the planned. plant. 2006 2008 2010 2012 Next Generation AM/PM BPEX introduced. Uses an system for pigs rolled out application developed in to all plants, replacing house. Includes pig plants BPEX. only. Data capture based Next Generation AM/PM on manual returns. system pilot for pigs starts, initially at four plants. 2.5 To ensure correct information is relayed, we sought the input from FSA York for the following description for the implementation of the Next Generation AM/PM system. • “Moving forward the FSA have purchased software licences to roll out the new AM and PM data collection and reporting application to all abattoirs across GB. The strategy is to systematically decommission the AM/PM system species by species - the Cattle project has already been started. During the roll out of new species specific bespoke batch screens will be specified by the project team this can be for batches or for individual animals depending on what is appropriate. These screens are then created taking into account lessons learned from the pig and poultry projects and where possible improvements will be made across all species e.g. improved front end validation for instance linking producers to species to validate the producer selection. Inspection screens will then be linked to the batch screens which are fully customisable ensuring that the FSA have full control over conditions and body parts and changes can be made to these internally. During the decommissioning process the Page 9 of 118 MC1001: REVIEW OF HISTORIC ANTE MORTEM AND POST MORTEM INSPECTION DATA. Version 2.2 FINAL REPORT archive data e.g. from AM/PM and OMIS will be extracted, transformed and loaded into a data warehouse ensuring consistent reporting across systems.” (Howard Betts, FSA York, personal communication). 2.6 Again, in short, there are three relevant datasets in use; the Next Generation AM/PM system, the AM/PM system and throughput. These three datasets are the cornerstone of any reports making use of the ante mortem and post mortem inspection data. Table 2.2 provides a summary of data management systems. One point of note is that the recording of throughput data (i.e. the numbers of animals presented at each abattoir) is now recorded in the Next Generation AM/PM system. Table 2.2 Summary of the AM/PM system, Next Generation AM/PM system and throughput database. System Species Database(s) Comment AM/PM Cattle, small ‘OMIS’ (prior to May 2008) 100’s of paper forms per week. ruminant and ‘AM/PM’ (from May 2008). game Paper forms sent by fax, email species The AM/PM system stores or post from the plants and data in the ‘SIR’ – Single received by FSA York for Information Repository. manual input into database. Next Pigs and ‘Next Generation AM/PM’ Data are entered electronically Generation poultry directly at the abattoir. AM/PM Includes data on the number of animals presented for slaughter. Throughput All ‘Throughput’ Throughput (based on livestock units) is independent, but linked with the AM/PM system. 2.7 Subject to available funding, it is planned that data from all species, including lesser species such as game, will be managed through the Next Generation AM/PM system. However it is important to note that there may well be continued reliance on both the old and Next Generation AM/PM systems for some time beyond 2012. 2.8 Whilst a full review of IT systems is beyond the scope of this report, we are assured that a long term strategic approach is in place to establish the Next Generation AM/PM system for the recording of inspection data across all species. Overview of sample dataset 2.9 The data extract provided to us has proved to be complex. This is due to the nature of the datasets, which when merged; add a layer of complexity and inconsistency. Primarily, this is due to the evolution of each system to hold different information. 2.10 It was anticipated that it would be relatively straightforward to request and receive a data extract for conditions and throughput, against each species, to cover the last five years. In practice, the data extract received was compromised by reportedly insufficient time resource to better formulate the extract to meet our requirement. That is, the data would have gone through Page 10 of 118