WO2021255952A1

WO2021255952A1 - Information processing device

Info

Publication number: WO2021255952A1
Application number: PCT/JP2020/039746
Authority: WO
Inventors: 裕敬大内; 輝俊鈴木
Original assignee: Ｏｍリサーチ＆コンサルティング株式会社
Priority date: 2020-06-17
Filing date: 2020-10-22
Publication date: 2021-12-23
Also published as: JP2021197034A

Abstract

[Problem] To increase the reliability of the testing of food sanitation in an institution that handles food. [Solution] A test history acquisition unit 111 acquires input history for tests of food sanitation. The test history acquisition unit 111 acquires the time required for input of the test as input history. A test reliability determination unit 112 determines the appropriateness of the test based on the input history of the test of food sanitation acquired by the test history acquisition unit 111. The test reliability determination unit 112 determines that a test is inappropriate when the time (time required for input of a test) indicated by the input history acquired by the test history acquisition unit 111 does not satisfy a prescribed standard. A determination result output unit 113 outputs the determination result by the test reliability determination unit 112 to a user terminal 20.

Description

Information processing equipment

The present invention relates to food hygiene management.

As a technique related to food hygiene management, Patent Document 1 states that the inspection results of the state of hygiene management of business establishments handling food and their employees are worse than the predetermined standard values determined according to the importance. A technique for notifying a predetermined notification destination of an alert when it is a result is disclosed.

Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 2012-216115

In the inspection of food hygiene in a facility that handles food, when an employee who handles the normal work of the facility conducts the inspection, the food hygiene necessary to protect food safety is necessary because he / she is busy with the normal work. It may not be possible to perform the test, in which case the test will be less reliable.
Therefore, an object of the present invention is to improve the reliability of food hygiene inspection in a facility that handles food.

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention has a history acquisition unit that acquires an input history of a food hygiene inspection in a facility that handles food, and a determination unit that determines the appropriateness of the inspection based on the acquired input history. And an information processing apparatus including an output unit that outputs a determination result by the determination unit.

Further, the history acquisition unit acquires the time required for inputting the inspection as the input history, and the determination unit performs the inspection when the time indicated by the acquired input history does not meet a predetermined standard. It may be determined to be inappropriate.

Further, the determination unit may make the determination using the criteria determined according to the input item indicated by the acquired input history.

Further, when the history acquisition unit acquires the time when the input of the inspection is performed as the input history, and the determination unit includes the time indicated by the acquired input history in a predetermined time zone. In addition, it may be determined that the inspection is inappropriate.

Further, the determination unit may make the determination using a time zone determined according to the input item indicated by the acquired input history.

In addition, a determination unit that determines a method for dealing with an inspection determined to be inappropriate by the determination unit, and a determination unit.
It may be provided with a processing unit which performs processing for dealing with the facility by the determined coping method.

In addition, it is equipped with an environment acquisition unit that acquires environmental information indicating the environment related to food safety in facilities where food hygiene inspections are conducted, and the determination unit is for food poisoning indicated by the environment indicated by the acquired environmental information. The greater the risk, the stricter the coping method may be.

Further, the determination unit may determine the appropriateness for each item of the inspection, and the determination unit may make the coping method stricter as the number of items determined to be inappropriate increases.

According to the present invention, the reliability of food hygiene inspection in a facility that handles food can be enhanced.

A diagram showing an example of the overall configuration of the inspection support system according to the embodiment. Diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the server device Diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the user terminal Diagram showing the functional configuration realized by each device Diagram showing an example of facility information Diagram showing an example of printed correspondence information Diagram showing an example of stored inspection information Diagram showing an example of the displayed inspection screen Diagram showing an example of enlarged display of selected inspection items Diagram showing an example of inspection result table A diagram showing an example of the displayed aggregated results Diagram showing an example of a reference table Figure showing an example of the displayed judgment result Diagram showing an example of a coping table Diagram showing an example of the displayed countermeasures The figure which shows an example of the operation procedure of each apparatus in inspection display processing. The figure which shows an example of the operation procedure of each apparatus in a judgment process. A diagram showing an example of the operation procedure of each device in the coping process. A diagram showing an example of a reference table for a modified example Diagram showing an example of a table for dealing with modified examples

1 ... Inspection support system, 10 ... Server device, 20 ... User terminal, 101 ... Facility information storage unit, 102 ... Print control unit, 103 ... Read information acquisition unit, 104 ... Inspection information output unit, 111 ... Inspection history acquisition unit, 112 ... Inspection reliability judgment unit, 113 ... Judgment result output unit, 121 ... Environmental information acquisition unit, 122 ... Coping method determination unit, 123 ... Coping processing unit, 201 ... Code reading unit, 202 ... Inspection information storage unit, 203 ... Inspection processing unit, 211 ... Judgment result display unit, 221 ... Countermeasure display unit.

[1] First Example FIG. 1 shows an example of the overall configuration of the inspection support system 1 according to the embodiment. The inspection support system 1 is a system that supports inspection work, which is one of the work related to food hygiene management in a facility that handles food. The inspection work is a work to inspect whether the food hygiene condition in the facility meets the standards required for safety (for example, the standards defined by HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point)).

A facility that handles food is, for example, a restaurant, a restaurant for food and drink, a warehouse for food and drink, a factory for manufacturing food and drink, and the like, and is also a facility where food hygiene is inspected. In these facilities, the person in charge of food hygiene inspection is determined, but the person in charge of inspection work is not necessarily the person who has specialized knowledge and experience in food hygiene inspection.

For example, at a store that opens at a food sales event, a restaurant that opens at a shopping mall, or a self-employed restaurant in a shopping district, there are no specialized inspectors, so they are not familiar with food hygiene inspections. Employees will perform the inspection. The inspection support system 1 particularly supports the inspection work of the person in charge who does not have the specialized knowledge and experience of the inspection of food hygiene.

The inspection support system 1 includes a network 2, a server device 10, a user terminal 20, and a printing device 3. The network 2 is a communication system including a mobile communication network, the Internet, and the like, and relays data exchange between devices accessing the own system. The server device 10 is accessing the network 2 by wire communication (may be wireless communication), and the user terminal 20 is accessing the network 2 by wireless communication.

The user terminal 20 is a terminal used by a user who performs inspection work in a facility that handles food, and is a so-called mobile terminal that can be carried like a smartphone or a tablet terminal. The user is, for example, an employee in charge of inspection work among employees of a facility that handles food. The user terminal 20 stores the items to be inspected and displays the stored items. The user inspects the displayed item and inputs the inspection result to the user terminal 20.

Although only one user terminal 20 is shown in FIG. 1, when there are many facilities to be inspected, a plurality of inspectors use the plurality of user terminals 20 in parallel to perform a plurality of inspections in parallel. Will be done. The server device 10 performs a process of managing information related to inspection by the plurality of user terminals 20. The server device 10 is an example of the "information processing device" of the present invention. The information related to the inspection is the inspection items described above and the inspection results for each inspection item. The processing performed by the server device 10 will be described in detail later.

FIG. 2 shows an example of the hardware configuration of the server device 10. The server device 10 is a computer including a processor 11, a memory 12, a storage 13, a communication device 14, and a bus 15. The processor 11 operates, for example, an operating system to control the entire computer. The processor 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU: Central Processing Unit) including an interface with peripheral devices, a control device, an arithmetic unit, a register, and the like.

The processor 11 reads a program, data, and the like from at least one of the storage 13 and the communication device 14 into the memory 12, and executes various processes according to the read program and the like. The memory 12 is a computer-readable recording medium such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) and a RAM (Random Access Memory). The storage 13 is a recording medium that can be read by a computer such as a hard disk drive.

The communication device 14 is hardware (transmission / reception device) for communicating between computers via at least one of a wired network and a wireless network. Each device such as the processor 11 and the memory 12 is connected by a bus 15 for communicating information. The bus 15 may be configured by using a single bus, or may be configured by using a different bus for each device.

FIG. 3 shows an example of the hardware configuration of the user terminal 20. The user terminal 20 is a computer including a processor 21, a memory 22, a storage 23, a communication device 24, an input device 25, an output device 26, an image pickup device 27, and a bus 28. The processor 21 or the like in which the hardware having the same name is shown in FIG. 2 is the same type of hardware as in FIG. 2, although there are differences in performance, specifications, and the like.

The input device 25 is an input device (for example, a switch, a button, a sensor, etc.) that receives an input from the outside. The input device 25 includes an image pickup device (such as a digital camera) for taking a picture. The output device 26 is an output device (for example, a display, a speaker, an LED lamp, etc.) that outputs to the outside. In the user terminal 20, the input device 25 and the output device 26 include an integrated configuration (a touch screen in which a display and a touch panel are integrated). The image pickup apparatus 27 includes a lens, an optical system, an image sensor, and the like, and captures an image represented by light reaching the image sensor.

Each function in each device included in the inspection support system 1 is performed by the processor by loading predetermined software (program) on the hardware such as each processor and memory, and the communication by each communication device is controlled. It is realized by controlling at least one of reading and writing of data in memory and storage.

FIG. 4 shows the functional configuration realized by each device. The server device 10 includes a facility information storage unit 101, a print control unit 102, a read information acquisition unit 103, an inspection information output unit 104, an inspection history acquisition unit 111, an inspection reliability determination unit 112, and a determination result output. A unit 113, an environment information acquisition unit 121, a coping method determination unit 122, and a coping processing unit 123 are provided. The user terminal 20 includes a code reading unit 201, an inspection information storage unit 202, an inspection processing unit 203, a determination result display unit 211, and a coping method display unit 221.

The facility information storage unit 101 stores facility information, which is information about facilities where food hygiene inspections are performed. Specifically, the facility information storage unit 101 stores information in which a facility where a food hygiene inspection is performed and inspection information indicating a predetermined inspection method for the facility are associated with each other as facility information. The facility information storage unit 101 is an example of the "storage unit" of the present invention. Appropriate methods for food hygiene inspection are determined according to factors such as industry, business type, facility equipment environment, facility scale, and types of foodstuffs to be handled.

FIG. 5 shows an example of facility information. In the example of FIG. 5, the facility information storage unit 101 associates the facilities A, B, and C with "major item", "medium item", "inspection item", "inspection time", and "passing standard", respectively. The information is stored as facility information. "Employees", "ingredients", etc. are defined as major items. "Hand wash", "clothes", etc. are stipulated as medium items. The inspection items are represented by symbols in FIG. 5, but are actually represented by sentences explaining the contents of the inspection.

For example, the inspection item K-1 shall be the content of the inspection, for example, "washing hands for a predetermined time or longer". For example, this "predetermined time" is defined as a pass criterion for the inspection item K-1. In the example of FIG. 5, different pass criteria (standard a for facility A, standard b for facility B, and standard c for facility C) are associated with each facility as the pass criteria for the inspection item K-1.

Further, for example, the inspection items K-1, K-2, and K-3 are associated with the hand washing of the facility A, but only the inspection items K-1, K-3 are associated with the hand washing of the facility B. Only the inspection items K-1 and K-2 are associated with the hand washing. In this way, the facility information storage unit 101 stores facility information associated with inspection items that differ depending on the facility.

The print control unit 102 outputs print data for printing information associated with the facility (hereinafter referred to as "correspondence information"). The print control unit 102 is an example of the "print output unit" of the present invention. The correspondence information is, for example, identification information individually assigned to each facility, and specifically, a facility ID (Identification). Further, in the present embodiment, the print control unit 102 outputs print data for printing the coded correspondence information.

The print control unit 102 outputs, for example, print data for printing a two-dimensional code indicating a facility ID for each facility. In the example of FIG. 5, the facility information storage unit 101 stores the facility ID "ID001" in the facility A, "ID002" in the facility B, and "ID003" in the facility C as identification information. Therefore, these identification information are information associated with the facility.

For example, the print control unit 102 outputs print data for printing the two-dimensional code indicating "ID001" for facility A, and outputs print data for printing the two-dimensional code indicating "ID002" for facility B. .. The print control unit 102 outputs print data to the above-mentioned printing device 3. The coded correspondence information is not limited to the two-dimensional code, but may be a one-dimensional code, or may be a list of symbols obtained by converting the identification information by a predetermined algorithm. The printing device 3 prints the corresponding information indicated by the output print data on a medium such as paper.

FIG. 6 shows an example of printed correspondence information. In the example of FIG. 6, the two-dimensional code 5 which is the corresponding information associated with the “facility A” is printed on the paper 4. In addition, the character strings "Food hygiene inspection support information for facility A" and "Start the inspection application and read the following two-dimensional code" are printed on the form 4. In this way, the print control unit 102 outputs print data indicating a procedure for supporting the inspection of food hygiene by using the corresponding information.

The code reading unit 201 reads the two-dimensional code which is the printed correspondence information. The code reading unit 201 analyzes the image taken by the image pickup device 27 of its own device, and if a two-dimensional code is included, reads the information indicated by the two-dimensional code. When the two-dimensional code 5 of FIG. 6 is read, the code reading unit 201 reads the facility ID "ID001" of the facility A.

The code reading unit 201 transmits the read information (hereinafter referred to as “reading information”) to the server device 10. The read information acquisition unit 103 of the server device 10 acquires the transmitted read information. The reading information acquisition unit 103 supplies the acquired reading information to the inspection information output unit 104. The read information supplied in this way is the facility ID read by the user terminal 20 as described above.

The inspection information output unit 104 is supplied with the read information (facility ID) as described above, that is, when the correspondence information read by the user terminal 20 is transmitted from the user terminal 20 capable of reading the correspondence information. In addition, the inspection information associated with the same facility to which the corresponding information is associated is output to the user terminal 20. The inspection information output unit 104 is an example of the "information output unit" of the present invention.

The inspection information output unit 104 first reads out the inspection information stored in association with the supplied reading information (facility ID) from the facility information storage unit 101. Then, the inspection information output unit 104 outputs the read inspection information to the user terminal 20 which is the transmission source of the read information. The output inspection information is supplied to the inspection information storage unit 202 of the user terminal 20. The facility ID read by the code reading unit 201 is also supplied to the inspection information storage unit 202.

The inspection information storage unit 202 stores the supplied inspection information in association with the supplied facility ID.
FIG. 7 shows an example of stored inspection information. In FIG. 7A, the inspection information in the facility A is stored. The user terminal 20 provided with the inspection information storage unit 202 in this case is the user terminal 20 that has read the correspondence information printed for the facility A.

Further, in FIG. 7B, the user terminal 20 provided with the inspection information storage unit 202 is the user terminal 20 in which the inspection information in the facility B is printed for the facility B and the corresponding information is read. By storing the inspection information as described above, the preparation for the food hygiene inspection is completed. The inspection processing unit 203 performs processing related to food hygiene inspection based on the stored inspection information. The inspection processing unit 203 first displays an inspection screen for the relevant facility.

FIG. 8 shows an example of the displayed inspection screen. In the example of FIG. 8, the inspection processing unit 203 has the major items “employee” tab T1, “foodstuff” tab T2, “equipment / tableware” tab T3, “storage status” tab T4, and “environment”. The inspection list including the tab T5 of "" and the tab T6 of "determination" described later is displayed with the tab T1 open. The display area C1 of the "employee" includes a display area D1 for "hand washing", a display area D2 for "clothes", a display area D3 for "visual inspection of fingers", and the like.

Subsequent display shall also be performed by the inspection processing unit 203. Inspection items such as "K-1" and "K-2" are displayed in the display area of each middle item. When the display area C1 is scrolled, the display area of the middle item and the inspection item that are not displayed are displayed. On the left side of the inspection item, an NG button E1, a photo button E2, a comment button E3, and an OK button E4 are displayed. When the person in charge of inspection selects an inspection item for which the inspection result is to be input by an operation such as tapping, the inspection processing unit 203 enlarges and displays only the selected inspection item.

FIG. 9 shows an example of an enlarged display of the selected inspection item. In the example of FIG. 9, the inspection item K-4 is enlarged and displayed. When the NG button E1 is pressed in the enlarged display, an "x" mark (a mark indicating that the inspection result is NG) is displayed, and when the OK button E4 is pressed, an "○" mark (inspection) is displayed. A mark indicating that the result is OK) is displayed. When the photo input field E5 is tapped, for example, the image pickup device of the user terminal 20 is activated to take a picture by the user's operation, and the taken picture is displayed in the picture input field E5.

Note that when the photo input field E5 is tapped, the photographed photograph stored in the user terminal 20 may be imported. A comment may be manually input in the comment input field E6, or a comment may be input by selecting an example sentence included in the comment example sentence list E7. When the inspection processing unit 203 receives the input operation of the inspection result, the inspection processing unit 203 displays the result of the accepted input operation.

The inspection processing unit 203 determines that when the temporary suspension button B1 is tapped, the input to the enlarged inspection item K-4 is temporarily suspended, and returns to the inspection screen of FIG. 8 to display a list of inspection items. indicate. Further, when the input completion button B2 is tapped, the inspection processing unit 203 determines that the input to the enlarged inspection item K-4 has been completed, and returns to the inspection screen of FIG. 8 to list the inspection items. Is displayed.

Further, the inspection processing unit 203 stores the inspection result table, and when the input completion button B2 is tapped, reflects the result of the input operation up to that point in the inspection result table as the inspection result.
FIG. 10 shows an example of an inspection result table. In the inspection result table, "facility ID", "inspection count", "inspection item", "NG", "OK", "photograph", "comment" and "input date and time" are stored in association with each other. ..

The "facility ID" and "number of inspections" are stored when the inspection processing unit 203 generates an inspection result table. In the example of FIG. 10, since the inspection result table of the corresponding facility ID is generated for the first time, "1" times are stored as "inspection times". "NG" means that the test failed, and "OK" means that the test passed. The input of "NG" is represented by "x", and the input of "OK" is represented by "○".

The photo is represented by the file name of the image data, and the comment is represented by the file name of the text data. The input date and time is represented by the date and time, but it may be represented up to the detailed time. The inspection processing unit 203 refers to the inspection results stored in the inspection result table and performs the aggregation processing of the inspection results. The aggregation process is a process of calculating a value obtained by totaling the number of common inspection results (for example, OK inspection results) as an aggregation value.

In addition, the aggregation process also includes a process of calculating yet another value based on the calculated aggregated value. Specifically, the inspection processing unit 203 aggregates the inspection results of OK and calculates the ratio of the aggregated value of OK to the total number of inspection items (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation rate”) for each major item and for the whole. I do. The higher the evaluation rate, the more work that should be carried out for hygiene management is being carried out, and it can be used as an index indicating that safer food supply can be expected.

The inspection processing unit 203 handles the inspection results of each inspection item with a weight rather than a uniform weight in the calculation of the evaluation rate. For example, when there are 50 inspection items, if they are treated uniformly, the evaluation rate will decrease by 2% for each NG. On the other hand, by weighting each inspection item, the evaluation rate is calculated so that, for example, if the inspection item with high importance is NG, it decreases by 3%, and if the inspection item with low importance is NG, it decreases by 1%. To.

Importance means, for example, that inspection items that have a greater impact on food hygiene are more important. By weighting with the importance added, the reliability of the evaluation rate as the above index can be improved as compared with the case where the importance is not added. When the operation of pressing the tab T6 of the "determination" shown in FIG. 8 is performed, the inspection processing unit 203 displays the result of the previously performed aggregation.

FIG. 11 shows an example of the displayed aggregation result. The inspection processing unit 203 displays a result table F1 showing the evaluation rate for each major item and a radar chart F2 showing the evaluation rate for each major item. In addition, the inspection processing unit 203 indicates the overall evaluation rate as "comprehensive evaluation", and the character string "S" of the evaluation rank determined according to the comprehensive evaluation and "excellent store" which is the name determined according to the comprehensive evaluation. it's shown.

These names and evaluation ranks are, for example, "excellent store" and "S", "excellent store" and "A", "good store" and "B", "improvement point" and "improvement point" according to the value of the comprehensive evaluation. It is defined as "C". When the operation of pressing the input completion button B2 displayed on the inspection screen is performed, the inspection processing unit 203 updates and stores the inspection result table. Since the stored test result includes the facility ID and the number of tests, it is possible to know which facility and which test result it is.

The inspection processing unit 203 generates history data showing the history (= input history) of the input operation of the inspection result. In this embodiment, the inspection processing unit 203 generates data indicating the input characters, the selected options, the storage destination of the attached photo, etc. for each inspection item as historical data. Further, the inspection processing unit 203 generates data indicating the time when the inspection item is displayed on the inspection screen and the time when the input of the displayed inspection item is completed for each inspection item as historical data.

In this embodiment, the time when the inspection item is displayed is the time when the inspection item is enlarged and displayed as shown in FIG. 9, and the time when the input of the inspection item is completed is the time when the input completion button shown in FIG. 9 is completed. It is assumed that B2 is the time when it is tapped. The time from the time when the inspection item is displayed to the time when the input of the inspection item is completed means the time required for inputting the inspection. When the temporary suspension is performed, the time from the time when the inspection item is enlarged and displayed to the time when the temporary suspension operation is performed is added to the time required for inputting the inspection.

The inspection processing unit 203 transmits the generated history data to the server device 10. The inspection history acquisition unit 111 receives the transmitted history data and acquires the input history of the food hygiene inspection indicated by the received history data. The inspection history acquisition unit 111 is an example of the "history acquisition unit" of the present invention.

In this embodiment, the inspection history acquisition unit 111 acquires the above-mentioned time indicated by the history data, that is, the time required for inputting the inspection, as the input history. The inspection history acquisition unit 111 supplies the acquired input history to the inspection reliability determination unit 112. The inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines the appropriateness of the inspection based on the input history of the food hygiene inspection acquired by the inspection history acquisition unit 111. The inspection reliability determination unit 112 is an example of the "determination unit" of the present invention.

Appropriate inspection means confirming the items to be inspected accurately. The more appropriate the test, the more reliable the test. In order to accurately confirm the items to be inspected, it is necessary to take an appropriate amount of time for the inspection. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 does not perform the inspection when the time indicated by the input history acquired by the inspection history acquisition unit 111 (the time required for inputting the inspection) does not meet the predetermined standard. Judge as appropriate.

More specifically, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 makes a determination using the criteria determined according to the input item (inspection item) indicated by the input history acquired by the inspection history acquisition unit 111. Hereinafter, the criteria used for this determination are referred to as "judgment criteria". The inspection reliability determination unit 112 makes this determination using a reference table in which inspection items and determination criteria are associated with each other.

FIG. 12 shows an example of a reference table. In the example of FIG. 12, the inspection items "K-1", "K-2", "K-3", "K-4", etc. are set to the judgment criteria "T-1", "T-2", "T". -3 ”and“ T-4 ”are associated with each other. The inspection reliability determination unit 112 compares the time t required for inputting the inspection of each inspection item indicated by the history data with the time T of the determination standard, and if the time t is the time T or more, the inspection is appropriate. It is determined that the test was performed, and if the time t is less than the time T, it is determined that the inspection was inappropriate.

The inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines each inspection item and supplies the determination result to the determination result output unit 113. The determination result output unit 113 outputs the determination result by the inspection reliability determination unit 112 to the user terminal 20. The determination result output unit 113 is an example of the “output unit” of the present invention. The determination result display unit 211 of the user terminal 20 displays the determination result output from the server device 10. The determination result display unit 211 displays, for example, the determination result superimposed on the list of inspection items displayed on the inspection screen.

FIG. 13 shows an example of the displayed determination result. In the example of FIG. 13, the determination result display unit 211 displays the character string "<Important> Please perform the inspection again" on the inspection items "K1-2" and "K1-6". The inspection items "K1-2" and "K1-6" both had a judgment result of "○", but since it was judged that the inspection was inappropriate, a re-inspection was instructed.

The environmental information acquisition unit 121 of the server device 10 acquires environmental information indicating the environment related to food safety in the facility where the food hygiene inspection is performed. The environmental information acquisition unit 121 is an example of the "environmental acquisition unit" of the present invention. The environmental information acquisition unit 121 acquires, for example, information indicating meteorological conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind, and sunlight as environmental information. Food poisoning tends to increase as the temperature and humidity increase. In addition, if the facility is installed outdoors at an outdoor event or the like, food poisoning tends to increase as the wind is strong and the sunlight is strong.

The environmental information acquisition unit 121 acquires information indicating weather conditions as environmental information by using, for example, a service that provides weather information on the Internet. In addition, when the information indicating the number of food poisoning cases is provided by public services, for example, the environmental information acquisition unit 121 provides information indicating the number of food poisoning cases occurring in the surrounding area of the facility as environmental information. May be obtained as. The environmental information acquisition unit 121 supplies the acquired environmental information to the coping method determination unit 122.

The coping method determination unit 122 determines the coping method for the inspection determined to be inappropriate by the inspection reliability determination unit 112. The coping method determination unit 122 is an example of the "determination unit" of the present invention. In this embodiment, the coping method determination unit 122 determines one of the three coping methods as a coping method for the inspection determined to be inappropriate. The three coping methods are, for example, caution, improvement request, and re-inspection.

In this embodiment, each coping method shall be defined as follows. Attention is a coping method that sends a notice to the person in charge of the inspection that the inspection was inappropriate and calls for future attention. An improvement request is a coping method that notifies the same content as caution and requests the presentation of improvement measures. Re-examination is a coping method that requires re-examination within a certain period of time in addition to presenting improvement measures.

As mentioned above, the improvement request is a stricter measure than the caution, and the re-examination is a stricter measure than the improvement request. It should be noted that the greater the impact of the countermeasures on the business at the facility, the more severe the countermeasures. The coping method determination unit 122 determines the coping method using the coping table in which the environment information and the coping method are associated with each other.

FIG. 14 shows an example of a coping table. In the example of FIG. 14, the coping methods of "caution", "improvement request", and "re-inspection" are associated with the temperature range of "less than Th1", "Th1 or more and less than Th2", and "Th2 or more", respectively. There is. The coping method determination unit 122 determines the coping method associated with the temperature indicated by the environmental information supplied from the environmental information acquisition unit 121 in the coping table as the coping method for the inspection determined to be inappropriate.

The coping method determination unit 122 determines, for example, "caution" if the temperature is "less than Th1", and determines "improvement request" if the temperature is "Th1 or more and less than Th2". In this way, the coping method determination unit 122 takes stricter coping methods as the temperature indicated by the environmental information acquired by the environmental information acquisition unit 121 is higher, that is, the risk of food poisoning indicated by the environment indicated by the environmental information is greater. do.

The coping method determination unit 122 supplies the determined coping method to the coping processing unit 123. The coping processing unit 123 performs a process (hereinafter referred to as “coping process”) for coping with the facility by the coping method determined by the coping method determining unit 122. The coping processing unit 123 is an example of the "processing unit" of the present invention. In the present embodiment, the coping processing unit 123 transmits the coping data indicating the determined coping method to the user terminal 20, that is, the processing of notifying the user who performs the food hygiene inspection work of the facility as the coping processing. conduct.

The coping method display unit 221 of the user terminal 20 receives the transmitted coping data and displays the coping method indicated by the received coping data.
FIG. 15 shows an example of the displayed coping method. In the example of FIG. 15, the tag "notification" is displayed on the inspection screen of the facility A in an open state.

In FIG. 15 (a), the coping method display unit 221 may have performed inappropriate inspections for the following inspection items in "<Caution>" and "Your facility. Please be careful to perform an appropriate inspection by calling. "And the corresponding inspection item, that is, the inspection item judged to be inappropriate (" K-2, K-6, ... "). Is displayed.

In Fig. 15 (b), the coping method display unit 221 may have performed an inappropriate inspection for the following inspection items in "<Improvement request>" and "Your facility. Check the actual situation carefully. Please create and submit improvement measures. "And the corresponding inspection items, that is, the inspection items judged to be inappropriate (" K-2, K-6, ... "). Is displayed.

In FIG. 15 (c), the coping method display unit 221 may have performed "<re-inspection>" and "inappropriate inspections for the following inspection items at your facility. Please create and submit an improvement measure. Also, please re-inspect after one week. ”And the corresponding inspection item, that is, the inspection item judged to be inappropriate (“K-” 2, K-6, ... ")" is displayed.

As described above, any of the above-mentioned countermeasures will be notified to facilities that have undergone inappropriate inspections. This notification can provide the person in charge of the inspection work with motivation to work on improving the inspection work.

Based on the above configuration, the server device 10 and the user terminal 20 have an inspection display process for displaying an inspection screen based on printed correspondence information, and a determination process for determining the appropriateness of the inspection based on the inspection input history. , Take action to deal with inappropriate inspections.
FIG. 16 shows an example of an operation procedure of each device in the inspection display process. The operation procedure of FIG. 16 is started, for example, when the operator of the inspection support system 1 performs an operation of instructing the server device 10 to print correspondence information for each facility from an external device or the like.

First, the server device 10 (print control unit 102) outputs print data for printing coded correspondence information (two-dimensional code indicating facility identification information in this embodiment), and outputs the correspondence information on paper or the like. Printing on a medium (step S11). Next, the user terminal 20 (code reading unit 201) reads the two-dimensional code which is the printed correspondence information (step S21).

Next, the user terminal 20 (code reading unit 201) transmits the read information (facility ID indicated by the two-dimensional code), which is the read information, to the server device 10 (step S22). The server device 10 (read information acquisition unit 103) acquires the transmitted read information (step S23). Next, the server device 10 (inspection information output unit 104) reads out the inspection information stored in association with the acquired read information (facility ID) from the facility information storage unit 101 (step S24).

Subsequently, the server device 10 (inspection information output unit 104) outputs the read inspection information to the user terminal 20 which is the transmission source of the read information (step S25). The user terminal 20 (inspection information storage unit 202) stores the output inspection information in association with the facility ID (step S26). Then, the user terminal 20 (inspection processing unit 203) performs an inspection process, which is a process related to food hygiene inspection, based on the stored inspection information (step S31).

FIG. 17 shows an example of the operation procedure of each device in the determination process. The operation procedure of FIG. 17 is started, for example, when an operation for displaying a determination result of appropriateness of inspection is performed on the user terminal 20. First, the user terminal 20 (determination result display unit 211) transmits request data indicating a request for transmission of the determination result and the facility ID associated with the own terminal to the server device 10 (step S41).

The server device 10 (inspection reliability determination unit 112) reads out the input history stored in association with the facility ID indicated by the request data (step S42). Next, the server device 10 (inspection reliability determination unit 112) determines whether or not the inspection is appropriate for each inspection item based on the read input history (step S43), and the determination result is transmitted to the user terminal 20. Transmit (step S44). The user terminal 20 (determination result display unit 211) displays the transmitted determination result (step S45).

FIG. 18 shows an example of the operation procedure of each device in the coping process. The operation procedure of FIG. 18 is started, for example, when a predetermined time interval elapses. First, the server device 10 (environmental information acquisition unit 121) acquires environmental information (step S51). Next, the server device 10 (countermeasure determination unit 122) determines a countermeasure for the inspection determined to be inappropriate (step S52).

Subsequently, the server device 10 (handling processing unit 123) executes a coping process for coping with the facility by the determined coping method (step S53). In this embodiment, the server device 10 (handling processing unit 123) executes a processing of transmitting the coping data indicating the determined coping method to the user terminal 20 as the coping processing. Then, the user terminal 20 (countermeasure display unit 221) displays the countermeasures indicated by the transmitted countermeasure data (step S54).

In this embodiment, as described above, the result determined to be inappropriate is output to the user terminal 20, so that the user of the user terminal 20 (for example, an employee in charge of inspection work) may have performed inappropriately. It is possible to grasp the inspection with high sex. Further, in this embodiment, if the time required for inputting the inspection is too short, it is determined to be inappropriate. As a result, the user of the user terminal 20 can grasp the inspection in which it is highly possible that only the input is performed in a short time without confirming the actual situation.

Further, in this embodiment, since the standard is not fixed when determining the appropriateness of the inspection, the standard is fixed for each inspection item by setting the standard suitable for each inspection item. Compared with this, the accuracy of determination can be improved. Further, in this embodiment, since the coping method for the inspection determined to be inappropriate is determined according to the above environment indicated by the environmental information, the occurrence of food poisoning is suppressed even in an environment where there is a high risk of food poisoning. can do.

[2] Modifications The above-mentioned examples are merely examples of the implementation of the present invention, and may be modified as follows. Further, the examples and the modified examples may be combined and carried out as necessary.

[2-1] Input time In the embodiment, the time required for inputting the inspection is used as the input history, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the time when the inspection is input (hereinafter referred to as “input time”) may be used as the input history. In this case, the inspection processing unit 203 of the user terminal 20 transmits history data indicating, for example, the time when the input completion button B2 shown in FIG. 9 is tapped as the input time.

The inspection history acquisition unit 111 acquires the input time indicated by the transmitted history data as the input history. The inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines that the inspection is inappropriate when the input time indicated by the input history acquired by the inspection history acquisition unit 111 is included in a predetermined time zone. The predetermined time zone is, for example, in the case of a restaurant, a lunch time zone after noon and a dinner time zone after the evening.

The work is busy during these hours, and it should be difficult to carry out a careful inspection. Since there is a high possibility that the inspection target is not sufficiently confirmed in the inspection in which the input is made in such a time zone, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines that the inspection is inappropriate. By making this determination, it is possible to grasp an inspection that is likely to have been performed without sufficiently confirming the inspection target at a time zone unsuitable for the inspection due to busy work or the like.

Note that the busy and difficult time zone differs depending on the type of work being performed at the facility, so the predetermined time zone may be different depending on the type of work. In addition, if the scale of the facility is large, it may be possible to secure personnel for inspection even during busy hours, so the predetermined time zone may be different depending on the scale of the facility. Specifically, the larger the scale of the facility, the shorter the predetermined time zone.

In addition, depending on the inspection item, there are some that are easy to inspect and some that are difficult to inspect even during busy hours. Therefore, even if the inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines the inappropriateness of the inspection by using the time zone determined according to the input item indicated by the input history acquired by the inspection history acquisition unit 111. good.
FIG. 19 shows an example of a reference table of this modification. In the example of FIG. 19, the inspection items “K-1”, “K-2”, “K-3”, “K-4” and the like are defined by the determination criteria “TZ-1”, “TZ-2”, and the like. Time zones such as "TZ-3" and "TZ-4" are associated with each other.

The inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines that the inspection was appropriate when the input time of the inspection of each inspection item indicated by the history data is not included in the time zone of the criterion associated with each inspection item. However, if it is included, it is judged that the inspection was inappropriate. By making the predetermined time zone different as described above, the accuracy of the determination can be improved as compared with the case where the predetermined time zone is uniform.

[2-2] Countermeasures The countermeasures are not limited to those described in the examples (caution, improvement request, re-inspection). For example, a coping method may be used in which a period for improving the inspection quality (hereinafter referred to as “improvement period”) is secured and the re-inspection is required after the improvement period has elapsed. In that case, the coping processing unit 123 may transmit data indicating an instruction for not accepting the input of the inspection to the user terminal 20 as coping data until the improvement period elapses.

The inspection processing unit 203 of the user terminal 20 does not accept the inspection input until the improvement period elapses, and accepts the inspection input after the improvement period elapses, according to the instruction indicated by the received coping data. By securing the improvement period in this way, it is possible to take time to confirm the current situation and consider improvement measures, so it is possible to improve the quality of the re-inspection compared to the case of re-inspection immediately without setting the improvement period. can.

[2-3] Method for determining the coping method In the embodiment, if there is at least one inspection item determined to be inappropriate by the inspection reliability determination unit 112, the coping method determining unit 122 determines the coping method and performs the coping process. The coping process was performed by the unit 123, but the present invention is not limited to this. As described in the examples, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines the appropriateness for each inspection item.

Therefore, the coping method determination unit 122 may determine the coping method when, for example, the item determined to be inappropriate satisfies a predetermined standard (hereinafter referred to as "coping standard"). The coping criteria are met, for example, when the number of items determined to be inappropriate is equal to or greater than the threshold value. In addition, instead of simply counting the number of items, points are distributed to each item according to the importance of the inspection, and the measures to be taken when the total score of the items judged to be inappropriate is equal to or greater than the threshold value. Criteria may be used.

In either case, if the degree of inadequacy of the inspection is low to some extent, no measures such as caution will be taken. As a result, when the inspection becomes inappropriate due to a minor mistake or inadequacy, no countermeasure is taken one by one, and the burden on the user in charge of the inspection can be lightened. The coping method determination unit 122 may make the coping method stricter as the number of items determined to be inappropriate (hereinafter referred to as “inappropriate items”) increases.

FIG. 20 shows an example of a coping table of this modified example. In the example of FIG. 20, the number of inappropriate items such as “less than Th11”, “Th11 or more and less than Th12”, and “Th12 or more” are associated with the coping methods of “caution”, “improvement request”, and “re-examination”, respectively. Has been done. The coping method determination unit 122 counts the number of inappropriate items, and determines the coping method associated with the counted number in the coping table as the coping method for the inspection determined to be inappropriate. As a result, it is possible to improve the inspection by taking stricter measures in the facility where the degree of inappropriate inspection is higher.

[2-4] Judgment of Inappropriate Inspection The inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines whether the inspection is appropriate or inappropriate in the examples, but the determination is not limited to this, and for example, the determination is made at the level of appropriateness of three or more stages. You may. The higher this level, the better the test.

For example, when the time required for inputting an inspection is used as in the embodiment, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines that the longer the time required for inputting the inspection, the higher the level of appropriateness of the inspection. .. Further, if the time when the inspection is input is used as in the above modification, the inspection reliability determination unit 112 determines the ease of inspection for each time zone, and the inspection is input. It is judged that the higher the level of appropriateness of the inspection, the easier the inspection is in the time zone including the time when the inspection was performed.

The coping method determination unit 122, for example, totals the numerical values of the appropriateness levels of the inspections determined for each inspection item, and determines the coping method based on the total. Specifically, the coping method determination unit 122 makes the coping method stricter as the total level is smaller. According to this modification, it is possible to determine a coping method that is more suitable for the actual situation as compared with the case where the inspection reliability is determined in two stages.

[2-5] Device for Realizing Each Function The device for realizing each function shown in FIG. 4 and the like is not limited to the above-mentioned device. For example, the functions realized by the server device 10 may be shared and realized by two or more devices, or the functions realized by the user terminal 20 may be shared and realized by two or more devices. In either case, it is sufficient that each function shown in FIG. 4 or the like is realized in the entire inspection support system 1.

[2-6] Category of Invention The present invention is regarded as an information processing system (the inspection support system 1 is an example thereof) provided with each information processing device in addition to the above-mentioned information processing devices such as the server device 10 and the user terminal 20. Will be. Further, the present invention can be regarded as an information processing method for realizing the processing performed by each information processing device, and also as a program for operating a computer that controls each information processing device. The program regarded as the present invention may be provided in the form of a recording medium such as an optical disk in which the program is stored, or may be downloaded to a computer via a network such as the Internet, and the downloaded program may be installed and used. It may be provided in the form of a computer.

Claims

The history acquisition department that acquires the input history of food hygiene inspections at facilities that handle food,
A determination unit that determines the appropriateness of the inspection based on the acquired input history, and
An information processing device including an output unit that outputs a determination result by the determination unit.
The history acquisition unit acquires the time required for inputting the inspection as the input history.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines that the inspection is inappropriate when the time indicated by the acquired input history does not meet a predetermined criterion.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit makes the determination using the criteria determined according to the input item indicated by the acquired input history.
The history acquisition unit acquires the time when the input of the inspection is performed as the input history.
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines that the inspection is inappropriate when the acquired time indicated by the input history is included in a predetermined time zone.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the determination unit makes the determination using a time zone determined according to the input item indicated by the acquired input history.
A determination unit that determines how to deal with an inspection that is determined to be inappropriate by the determination unit, and a determination unit.
The information processing apparatus according to any one of claims 1 to 5, further comprising a processing unit that performs processing for dealing with the facility by the determined coping method.
Equipped with an environment acquisition department that acquires environmental information indicating the environment related to food safety in facilities where food hygiene inspections are conducted.
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the determination unit makes the coping method stricter as the risk of food poisoning indicated by the environment indicated by the acquired environmental information increases.
The determination unit determines the appropriateness for each item of the inspection, and determines the appropriateness.
The information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the determination unit makes the coping method stricter as the number of items determined to be inappropriate increases.