Rating as a tool for increasing the level of compliance with mandatory requirements by objects of sanitary and epidemiological control (supervision)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Introduction. The relevance of the study is determined by postulates fixed in the Concept for Improvement of Control (Supervision) Activities for the period up to 2026. It stipulates the requirement to assign a rating to each object under supervision as a tool to encourage conscientious behaviour and a mechanism that ensures easy public access to any data regarding safety of each object under control.

The aim of this study was to develop a methodology and criteria for assessing objects that are subject to sanitary-epidemiological control (supervision) to assign a proper rating to them.

Materials and methods. The approaches were based on statistical analysis of the results obtained by control, supervision, and prevention activities and on identifying levels of risks of harm to protected values, primarily, people’s lives and health.

Results. The study presents methodical instruments used for calculating relative coefficients and corresponding scores serving as criteria for identifying a rating and calculated considering actual and potential risks of health harm. Objects are rated depending on the value of this relative coefficient (from low to high ones) and estimated per a suggested scale that allows identifying the level of their relative conformity with the law. Objects in the first scale range (the lowest coefficients and highest ratings) are considered to be the most law-abiding. Objects in the fourth range (the highest coefficients and lowest ratings) are considered to have the highest risks of health harm. The latter are the first-order priority and should attract the greatest attention of regulatory authorities.

Limitations. The study has limitations as regards considering specificity of detected violations and severity of their outcomes.

Conclusion. The suggested approaches to assigning ratings to both juridical persons and production facilities of the same juridical person provide information and methodical support for the requirements fixed in the valid federal legislation and prospects for the development of the public administration. The presented tools allow more flexible planning and help to the regional offices of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing to create inspection schedules in accordance with available resources so that they can soundly concentrate their efforts on the most ‘difficult’ objects even within the same risk category. Assigning a rating to an object is a way to encourage businesses to conform to mandatory requirements (for objects with low rating) and to give them an opportunity to show their socially responsible image (for objects with high rating). Assigning a rating is an instrument keeping the civil society informed and helps to make a well-grounded choice when it comes down to objects that render various services to the population.

Compliance with the ethical standards. This study does not require the conclusion of a biomedical ethics committee or other documents.

Contribution:
Zaitseva N.V. — the study concept and editing the text;
May I.V. — the study concept, writing and editing the text;
Kiryanov D.А. — the study concept and data analysis;
Sedusova E.V. — data analysis.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement. The study was funded by the Federal Budget.

Received: August 12, 2024 / Accepted: October 2, 2024 / Published: November 19, 2024

About the authors

Nina V. Zaitseva

Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies

Email: znv@fcrisk.ru

DSc (Medicine), professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Director, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

e-mail: znv@fcrisk.ru

Irina V. May

Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies

Email: may@fcrisk.ru

DSc (Biology), professor, deputy director on science, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

e-mail: may@fcrisk.ru

Dmitry A. Kiryanov

Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies

Email: kda@fcrisk.ru

PhD (Engineering), head of the Department for Mathematical Modelling of Systems and Processes, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

e-mail: kda@fcrisk.ru

Ella V. Sedusova

Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies

Author for correspondence.
Email: ella@fcrisk.ru

Researcher of the Sanitary and Hygienic Analysis and Expert Examinations Laboratory, Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

e-mail: ella@fcrisk.ru

References

  1. Mayorov V.I. Modernization of the control and supervision system: a new regulatory policy. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess. 2019; (11): 34–6. https://elibrary.ru/jaiybm (in Russian)
  2. Medvedev D.A. Russia-2024: the strategy of social and economic development. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2018; (10): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-10-5-28 https://elibrary.ru/yckjbr (in Russian)
  3. Bologova D.D., Nikolova A.D. National projects of the Russian Federation in the field of demography. In the collection. In: National Development Goals of Russia: challenges, priorities and strategic objectives. Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference [Natsional’nye tseli razvitiya Rossii: vyzovy, prioritety i strategicheskie zadachi. Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii]. Orel; 2022: 164–8. https://elibrary.ru/illege (in Russian)
  4. Glazunova I.V. Creation of a systemic legal basis for modern forms and methods of administrative and legal regulation of management in the field of economics. Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennoi ekonomiki. 2022; (9): 252–62. https://doi.org/10.34755/IROK.2022.70.61.034 https://elibrary.ru/kxqhqn (in Russian)
  5. State report «On the state of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population in the Russian Federation in 2023». Moscow; 2024. (in Russian)
  6. Yurasova M.V. Rating as a tool for measuring success: “pro” and “contra”. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya. 2017; (2): 127–63. https://elibrary.ru/zchuhd (in Russian)
  7. Yakimova V.A., Khmura S.V. Rating of priority development areas in the Far Eastern Federal District based on risk assessment and investment attractiveness (part 1). Upravlenie finansovymi riskami. 2020; (1): 50–61. https://elibrary.ru/mifedh (in Russian)
  8. Krasnov A.I., Sukharnikov I.I. Economic differentiation of municipal districts of the Pskov region. South Russian Forum: Economics, Sociology, Political Science, Socio-Economic Geography [Yuzhno-Rossiiskii forum: ekonomika, sotsiologiya, politologiya, sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya geografiya]. 2015; (2): 27–38. https://elibrary.ru/uyxtet (in Russian)
  9. Kolobashkina T.A. New approaches to assessing well-being in smart cities. Vektory blagopoluchiya: ekonomika i sotsium. 2023; 51(4): 196–209. https://doi.org/10.18799/26584956/2023/4/1687 (in Russian)
  10. Bris A., Cabolis Ch., Lanvin B., eds. Sixteen Shades of Smart: How Cities Can Shape Their Own Future. Singapore: Singapore University of technology and design; 2019.
  11. Abduvaliev A.A., Isadjanov A.A. Examining the growth of regional science and technology clusters in the global economy. R-Economy. 2023; 9(3): 338–48. https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2023.9.3.021
  12. Savinova E.A., Kovalerova L.A. Using ratings to assess the creditworthiness of banks. Politematicheskii setevoi elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta. 2017; (127): 340–52. https://doi.org/10.21515/1990-4665-127-022 https://elibrary.ru/ylzubx (in Russian)
  13. Caporale G., Matousek R., Stewart C. Ratings assignments: Lessons from international banks. J. Int. Money Finance. 2012; 31(6): 1593–606.
  14. Ballis A., Ioannidis C., Sifodaskalakis E. Structural shifts in bank credit ratings. J. Financial Stab. 2024; 73: 101272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2024.101272
  15. Kulikova A.A., Materova E.S. Credit policy of Russian commercial banks in modern conditions. In: XLIX Samara Regional Student Scientific Conference. Abstracts of the Reports [KhLIX Samarskaya oblastnaya studencheskaya nauchnaya konferentsiya. Tezisy dokladov]. St. Petersburg; 2023: 53–4. https://elibrary.ru/rfjmfh (in Russian)
  16. Akyurek E., Bolat P. Ranking port state control detention remarks: professional Judgement and spatial overview. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021; 13(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00480-8
  17. Yang Z., Yin J., Qu Z. A risk-based game model for rational inspections in port state control. Transport. Res. E-Log. 2018; 118: 477–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.08.001
  18. Cariou P., Wolff F.C. Identifying substandard vessels through Port State Control inspections: A new methodology for Concentrated Inspection Campaigns. Marine Policy. 2015; 60: 27–39. hрttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.013
  19. Bhuvanesh W. Does the food safety ranking system act as a nudge? Int. J. Appl. Behav. Econ. 2021; 10: 42–58. hрttps://doi.org/10.4018/IJABE.2021100104
  20. Ray E.C., Merle P.F. Disgusting face, disease-ridden place?: Emoji influence on the interpretation of restaurant inspection reports. Health Commun. 2021; 36(14): 1867–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1802867
  21. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Hygiene Rating Scheme: Guidance document; 2021. Available at: https://hygiene.fssai.gov.in/resources/Hygiene%20Rating%20Document_Jan21_VerIV.pdf
  22. Kim J., Ma J., Almanza B. Consumer Perception of the Food and Drug Administration’s Newest Recommended Food Facility Inspection Format: Words Matter. J. Environ. Health. 2017; 79(10): 20–5.
  23. Bogumil V.N., Sedin O.N. Development of a methodology for the formation and management of safety ratings of road carriers. Nauchnyi vestnik avtomobil’nogo transporta. 2022; (1): 19–31. https://elibrary.ru/adywgi (in Russian)
  24. Fedorov D.S. On the issue of the procedure for forming a rating assessment of carriers as executors of a service agreement. In the collection: Logistics Audit of Transport and Supply Chains. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference [Logisticheskii audit transporta i tsepei postavok. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii]. Tyumen’; 2018: 143–6. (in Russian)
  25. Plaksin S.M., Abuzyarova I.A., Alimpeev D.R., Kazikaev V.D., Kashanin A.V., Knutov A.V., et al. Control, Supervision and Licensing Activities in the Russian Federation. The Vector of Development until 2030. Analytical Report – 2023. Moscow; 2024. https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2972-0 (in Russian)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2025



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.