City of Toronto unveils public disclosure system for aquatic facilities

by jason_cramp | September 2, 2016 11:30 am

[1]

Recreational water-related activities are an excellent source of physical activity and relaxation, and Toronto residents have access to more than 1700 facilities where they can swim, soak in a hot tub, or enjoy world-class beaches.

That said, pools, hot tubs, and natural bodies of water have health and safety risks that can lead to waterborne illnesses, physical injuries and, in some instances, drownings. Although drowning deaths are not unique to children, kids are at greater risk. In fact, according to the Red Cross, on average, 20 children drown each year in Ontario[2].

To mitigate the risk of injury and death, jurisdictions across Canada have passed regulatory legislation for public pools and hot tubs. In Ontario, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has enacted minimum standards in the form of regulations under the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA). Public health inspectors (PHIs) enforce these regulations under the authority of the local medical officers of health (MOH). Toronto Public Health (TPH) delivers a comprehensive recreational water inspection program to protect the health and safety of residents.

Following the inspection of these facilities when deficiencies occur, written instructions are provided to the owner and/or facility operator outlining the actions that must be taken to correct any problems. PHIs then conduct re-inspections within 24 to 48 hours to verify the appropriate corrective action(s) have been taken.

When an imminent health and safety hazard is identified, the HPPA, under a Section 13 order, authorizes the closure of an aquatic facility. The order specifies the steps that must be taken before the establishment can be allowed to reopen.

Once all the specified conditions are met, as determined by a re-inspection, the closure order is lifted and the premises is monitored to ensure continued compliance.

Although the requirements of the regulations are intended to reduce the risk of injury and death, such risk cannot be eliminated entirely. That said, the level of compliance with regulation does play an integral role in risk reduction. Unannounced inspections of public pools and hot tubs aim to increase compliance with the regulation to the highest level possible.

In looking at the five-year percentage compliance rate, it is clearly evident that conformity, namely the percentage of satisfactory inspections where there have been no deficiencies, falls well below maximum compliance (see Table 1 below). It can be argued such a low average compliance with the minimum standards puts those who use aquatic facilities in Toronto at an increased risk of injury and/or death.

Table 1: Five-year percentage compliance rate on average for recreational aquatic facilities in Toronto
Year	Closed	Re-inspection	D-noted	Satisfactory	Non-compliance
2010	3.8	3.5	48.2	44.6	55.40
2011	4.6	4.8	51.0	39.6	60.43
2012	4.2	3.5	54.1	38.2	61.76
2013	3.6	4.7	57.0	30.6	69.41
2014	5.3	7.0	57.1	30.6	69.41
Mean	4.3	4.7	53.5	37.5	62.46

A tried and true compliance strategy

In 2000, the Toronto Star ran a story titled “Dirty Dining,” which highlighted deficiencies in the city’s food inspection program after the amalgamation of six separate health units. At the time, compliance by restaurants with food safety regulations was much lower than it is today.

To address these deficiencies, TPH introduced the DineSafe disclosure program in the interest of providing transparency. This program provides public disclosure of inspection results by means of colour-coded signage posted at eateries and on the health department’s website, which enables patrons to make an informed decision. Eating establishments were graded by pass, conditional pass, and closed inspection notices depending on the severity of the infractions and non-compliance.

Two years following the implementation of this colour-coded disclosure program, compliance increased to 90 per cent. Today, this compliance remains above 90 per cent and the DineSafe program is world-renowned.

Research has shown that grade cards similar to the pass, conditional pass, and closed signs displayed in food establishments throughout Toronto and other cities in Canada and the U.S. compels establishments to make food sanitation improvements[3]. Those establishments that do not conform are eventually forced out of business as the customer base declines.

Empowering the public with the ability to make informed choices is clearly a winning strategy. It greatly improves compliance with regulations, raises the bar on sanitation, and it can be argued the city’s reputation also benefits.

The emergence of the SwimSafe program

With the above statistics in mind, in September 2013, the City of Toronto’s board of health (BOH) requested Dr. David McKeown, the city’s MOH, to increase public awareness and access to public aquatic facility inspection reports. The goal was to develop and implement a public disclosure system similar to the DineSafe program, but for recreational water.

The two main components of the SwimSafe disclosure system are the availability of inspection findings on the web and posting of notices at the facility. They are designed to provide information about conditions at the aquatic facility and empower the consumer in making healthy, informed choices.

The first stage of this program involved developing and implementing the SwimSafe website. In October 2013, the website started to disclose key information about public aquatic facilities in Toronto. Similar to DineSafe, the SwimSafe website features an interactive map where visitors are able to identify, at a glance, whether or not the aquatic facility of choice meets the minimum standards. The green, yellow, and red markings on the map, at the precise address of the aquatic facility, indicate the inspection status. A green and yellow marking signifies a pass and conditional pass, respectively. However, red denotes closed.

A green pass indicates the facility was in full compliance with the appropriate regulation, whereas the yellow conditional pass shows there were some violations of the regulations that are not considered to be an imminent health hazard. A red marking indicates existence of an imminent health and safety hazard and, therefore, the aquatic facility is not in compliance with the regulations. As a result, a closure order for the premises is issued by a PHI under Section 13 of the HPPA. The interactive map also provides additional features for users, including a search function to locate aquatic facilities and access to two years of historical inspection findings.

Categorization of aquatic facilities

[4]

For the public’s convenience, aquatic facilities are categorized according to access type. For instance, pools and hot tubs such as city-operated facilities that are fully open to the public are classified as ‘Public.’ Those operated by a condominium/apartment or hotel/motel, where only residents and their guests have access, are classified as ‘Restricted.’ Pools and hot tubs operated by schools, colleges, and universities are classified as ‘School.’ Further, the website[5] provides detailed information about the inspection system and related infractions.

Additionally, the SwimSafe website provides key information for builders and renovators of public pools and hot tubs to assist them in the construction/renovation of a facility. By clicking on the appropriate tab, visitors can access a pamphlet that contains useful information necessary for construction/renovation of an aquatic facility. Similarly, pool and hot tub operator manuals, developed by TPH for the purpose of assisting operators achieve compliance with the regulations, are also easily accessible online.

To further assist owner/operators of aquatic facilities, TPH has developed two posters as guidelines focusing on the main categories of the most common infractions which result in conditional pass or closure. The intent of these posters is to familiarize pool and hot tub operators with these main issues in an effort to reduce or eliminate such infractions.

In May 2015, city council authorized the posting of the colour-coded inspection notices by adopting Municipal Code Chapter 520[6]. This legislation requires owners of public pools and hot tubs “to post in a conspicuous place clearly visible to members of the public prior to their immediate entry to the pool or spa (hot tub) deck, the most recent inspection notice issued by the Medical Officer of Health.” The code also requires these notices to be “posted at every entrance to the immediate pool or spa (hot tub) deck area if there is more than one entrance to that area.”

In October 2015, TPH inspectors started issuing these notices together with newly designed public pool and hot tub inspection reports. For the first three months, PHIs issued new inspection reports to familiarize and educate aquatic facility operators with the new process.

What determines a particular inspection notice?

[7]

The green (pass) inspection notice is issued by the PHI when a pool/hot tub is essentially in compliance with the appropriate regulation and where minor infractions are deemed not to have significant health and/or safety impacts. For example, a facility which is not keeping accurate records would be issued a pass.

The yellow (conditional pass) inspection notice is issued by the PHI when a pool/hot tub is not in compliance with the regulation and includes infractions that:

a) are likely to have health and safety impact; and/or

b) may become an imminent health and safety hazard if not mitigated in a timely manner.

Where the PHI issues a conditional pass it is incumbent upon the operator of the aquatic facility to mitigate the violations that resulted in the issuance of the yellow inspection notice within
24 to 48 hours. If such violations are not corrected within this timeframe, and upon re-inspection the violations are deemed by the PHI to have become an imminent health and safety hazard, then the PHI may issue a closure order along with the red (closed) inspection notice.

If an infraction is deemed by the PHI to be an imminent health and safety hazard which could result in serious injury or death, the PHI will issue a Section 13 closure order under the HPPA (verbally, on the inspection report, and also in writing) together with the red sign and the inspection report. Upon its receipt, it is incumbent upon the operator to ensure the facility is vacated immediately and corrective action is taken. The facility must be closed and placarded with the red (closed) inspection notice at all entrances. Further, it must remain closed and placarded until a re-inspection by a PHI deems it safe to reopen.

Municipal Code chapter 520 requires the inspection notices issued by the PHI, on behalf of the MOH, to be posted in a conspicuous location. Further, inspection notices cannot be obscured and/or altered in any way.

As part of the implementation of the new SwimSafe disclosure program, TPH modified the inspection reporting process to simplify it and make it consistent with the DineSafe food safety program. This allows seamless rotation of PHIs between each program.

Understanding the inspection reports

[8]

The SwimSafe inspection reports have three main sections. The first section, like its predecessor, is designed to capture key information about the aquatic facility, including particulars such as address, business hours, and key contacts.

The second section relates to infractions of the regulation and inspection findings. This section is divided into nine key headings related to health and safety issues identified in the regulations ranging from water chemistry to closure. Each heading is further divided into varying subheadings which identify the severity of the infraction, which can be categorized as minor, significant, or closure.

During inspection of an aquatic facility, PHIs review each of these subsections for compliance with the regulation. Compliance is noted on the inspection form with a checkmark; an ‘X’ represents non-compliance. This eventually enables the PHI to identify the overall outcome of the inspection, as well as assign the appropriate SwimSafe disclosure inspection notice. At the discretion of the PHI, operators may be allowed to correct certain violations identified under some subsections while the inspector is present. This action is identified on the form as corrected during inspection (CDI).

The third and final section identifies the inspection outcome, date and time of the report, date of inspection, total time taken for the inspection, and sections for operator and PHI signatures.

Inspector training

[9]

TPH has also developed a pool and spa (hot tub) inspector’s report field guide which outlines a number of infractions—under the varying aforementioned categories—that may be identified at the end of the inspection. This guide assists the PHI when assigning the most appropriate colour-coded SwimSafe disclosure inspection notice.

Further, inspectors also underwent mandatory training to get familiarized with the new inspection processes. Additionally, quality assurance (QA) staff regularly monitors the entire review process by accompanying PHIs on inspections. They document the inspection process and identify any deviances from the approved practice. QA staff report their findings to the healthy environments quality assurance manager who generates the assessment reports. Where inconsistencies or deviances are identified, measures are implemented to conform to approved procedures and policies. Finally, all information regarding the inspection findings is reviewed and assessed daily for quality before being authorized for posting on the SwimSafe website.

[10]

After a period where the focus was on educating owners/operators of pools and hot tubs, the final stage in full implementation of the SwimSafe disclosure system began in late January 2016. PHIs started enforcing the posting of the colour-coded SwimSafe inspection notices to ensure compliance with the City of Toronto’s municipal code. The introduction of the new inspection reports and accompanying procedures has incorporated processes that enhance consistency and quality of inspections.

TPH’s enforcement strategy with regards to recreational water inspection, in general, can be seen as progressive enforcement. Philosophically, it acknowledges the majority of aquatic facility owners/operators are law-abiding and will conform to the minimum standards. In situations of non-compliance, TPH makes every effort to educate the operator. In most cases, education is sufficient to attain compliance. If non-compliance continues to be an issue, PHIs will, under the new SwimSafe program, educate the operator again, as well as issue a warning. Should non-compliance continue to be a problem during subsequent inspections, or infractions are of a serious nature, enforcement action in the form of a summons will be issued to the owner/operator of the aquatic facility. Escalation of enforcement is sustained with successive convictions by increased fines and/or court orders until behaviour change is achieved.

In conclusion, it can be argued Toronto’s world-class status can be attributed to, amongst other things, the ability to create a healthy city for people to live and visit. TPH is dedicated to this mission and has been a pioneer in implementing successful and world-renowned strategies such as the SwimSafe and DineSafe programs.

[11]Mahesh Patel, CIPHI(C), is a health hazard manager with Toronto Public Health. He holds a M.Sc. in water environmental management, a B.Sc. (honours) in applied chemistry, and a BAA in environmental health. As the safe water lead, he is responsible for both drinking and recreational water quality. This includes monitoring drinking water, beach water, and the compliance inspection program for public swimming pools, spas/hot tubs, and wading pools. As the legal and enforcement lead, Patel has played a major role in the development and implementation of policies and procedures. Internally he provides ongoing enforcement training and support to staff, while externally he continues to provide assistance and training to other Ontario health units and agencies for which he received an award of excellence from the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors (CIPHI) in 2012. He can be reached via e-mail at mpatel@toronto.ca[12].

Source URL: https://www.poolspamarketing.com/trade/city-of-toronto-unveils-public-disclosure-system-for-aquatic-facilities/

---