The Late Shift Handover
It is 21:40 on a Friday at a small hotel kitchen, and the evening service is winding down. Daniel, a food handler, has been sneezing and wiping his nose on his sleeve since 18:00. He tells the supervisor, Priya, that he feels fine apart from a blocked nose and a slight headache, and he wants to stay to finish the last 40 covers because the kitchen is already short-staffed. Earlier that day he cut his index finger on a can lid; the cut is covered with a blue waterproof plaster, but he has not changed it since 14:00 and it sits under a disposable glove. Priya has no written sickness policy to hand and the manager is off-site. The venue serves an elderly care group at 22:30 from the same kitchen.
1. Should Priya let Daniel continue food handling for the remaining service? Justify your decision using the symptoms, the legal context, and the risk to the care-group meal.
Read the worked answer
Priya should not let Daniel continue in food handling roles for the remaining service. The key reasoning is that a food handler with respiratory symptoms such as repeated sneezing is a potential source of contamination through droplets and hands, and the risk is amplified because he has been touching his face and sleeve rather than using tissues and washing hands.
From a legal standpoint, food handlers have a duty to report illness and to keep themselves and their clothing clean, and businesses must ensure no person known or suspected to be suffering from a condition likely to be transmitted through food is permitted to handle food where there is a risk. A blocked nose and headache alone may not be a notifiable condition, but the combination of uncontrolled sneezing, no hand-washing routine, and a care-group meal for vulnerable people makes the risk material.
Priya should move Daniel to non-food duties if any exist, or send him home, and arrange cover. She should record the decision and the reason. The care-group meal at 22:30 must be prepared by another handler who has not been symptomatic. The absence of a written policy does not remove the duty; it is a documentation gap to escalate to the manager.
2. Evaluate the plaster and glove arrangement on Daniel's finger and state what should happen to it before he leaves.
Read the worked answer
The arrangement is inadequate. A blue waterproof plaster is detectable, which is good practice, but it has been in place for over seven hours, has not been checked, and sits under a glove that traps moisture and can conceal leakage or loss of the plaster. A glove is not a substitute for a dressing; it does not stop contamination if the dressing fails, and it can give a false sense of security.
The correct action is for Daniel to remove the glove and plaster in a controlled way, inspect the wound, clean and re-dress it with a fresh waterproof detectable plaster, and if the wound is weeping or cannot be fully covered, he should be excluded from food handling until it heals. Any plaster loss must be treated as a contamination incident: the affected area and any food prepared since 14:00 should be considered, and the incident logged so the manager can assess whether product needs to be discarded.
Priya should also check whether Daniel's glove use has been changed regularly and review the first-aid stock. The lesson is that dressings need scheduled checks, not a single application at the start of a shift.