A porter with diarrhoea at a Marsaskala restaurant
At 06:40 a kitchen porter at a Marsaskala seafront restaurant tells the duty manager he had diarrhoea at 04:00 and again at 05:30 but has taken two loperamide tablets and feels 'back to normal'. He is rostered for salad prep, sandwich assembly and washing up from 07:00 to 15:00. He has a small plaster on his right thumb from a knife cut the previous day; the plaster is blue and waterproof but not detectable. The manager is short-staffed because two other workers are on leave. The porter says he cannot afford to lose the shift and offers to wear disposable gloves all day. The restaurant has a hand-wash basin in the kitchen but it is currently stacked with a tray of tomatoes, and the soap dispenser is empty. The manager asks you, as the person in charge, whether the porter can work and, if so, where.
1. Decide whether the porter may handle food today. Justify with reference to symptom-based exclusion and the role of loperamide.
Read the worked answer
The porter should not handle food today. Diarrhoea is a symptom of an infectious gastrointestinal illness, commonly norovirus, Campylobacter or Salmonella, and he had two episodes only a few hours ago. Loperamide reduces bowel movements but does not clear the pathogen; it can mask symptoms while the person remains infectious. Handling salad and sandwiches - both ready-to-eat - would create a direct route from his hands to food that will not be cooked. The fact that he feels better and needs the money does not change the risk. As a defensible standard, exclude him from food handling until he has been free of diarrhoea and vomiting for 48 hours; if he has a confirmed pathogen or continuing symptoms, seek advice from the local health authority. Record the report, the decision and the expected return date. Do not let him start work in the kitchen while waiting to decide.
2. If he is excluded from food handling, what work, if any, can he do, and what must happen before he returns to food handling?
Read the worked answer
If he is excluded from food handling, he should be sent home. He should not be given 'light duties' such as washing up, cleaning food-contact surfaces or handling crockery and cutlery that will be used with open food, because those tasks can spread contamination. If the manager cannot send him home, he may only work completely away from food, food-contact equipment and food storage areas, with strict hand hygiene and a separate toilet if possible - but in a small restaurant this is rarely realistic. Before returning, he must be symptom-free for 48 hours, wash hands thoroughly, report any recurrence, and be reminded not to work with food while ill. The manager should arrange cover rather than rely on gloves. The plaster should also be checked: a blue waterproof detectable plaster is appropriate, but it must be replaced if loose or soiled, and a cut on the hand should not be covered by a glove alone if the wound is weeping.
3. The manager suggests gloves as a solution. Explain why gloves do not resolve the issue, and identify the hand-wash facility problems that must be corrected for all staff.
Read the worked answer
Gloves do not solve the problem. They are not sterile, they can leak or tear, and they give a false sense of security. A gloved hand that has touched a contaminated surface, a cloth or the porter's own face will transfer contamination to food just as a bare hand would. Gloves also make hands sweat and can encourage less frequent handwashing. The correct control is exclusion of the ill worker plus rigorous hand hygiene for everyone. The hand-wash basin is unusable: it is stacked with tomatoes and the soap dispenser is empty. That is a fundamental breach. Clear the basin immediately, provide soap and paper towels, and keep the basin for handwashing only - never for food or equipment. Check all staff know when to wash: before starting, after toilet, after handling raw food, after waste, after breaks. The manager should be shown why gloves are not a substitute.