Keep an older score and a newer finding count in separate columns when comparing West Hartford–Bloomfield restaurant reports. The district’s comparison says its earlier form used demerits and pass/fail; the newer one assigns no numerical pass/fail score. Match dated observations and corrections before deciding what changed.
First make sure both reports belong to the same place
This comparison is for the West Hartford–Bloomfield Health District, which says it serves West Hartford and Bloomfield. Connecticut’s food-service results are handled locally. If the restaurant is in another town, use the site’s Connecticut inspection-search guide to identify its health department before applying a local report legend.
For two reports at the same address, copy the establishment name, permit holder if shown, street address, town, inspection date, visit purpose, and form version. A name change or a different permit holder may mean the newer document belongs to another operation. A routine inspection and a reinspection also answer different questions. Confirm the identity and visit type before comparing the findings; an old score beside a new reinspection is not a clean before-and-after measure.
The district’s page says a notice can tell customers that the most recent report is available on request at the establishment. For an older report or a pair of dates, the district’s Online Forms page lists an FOI Request Form, and its health-district page gives (860) 561-7900. Ask for the identified establishment, address, and two bounded inspection periods. No public district restaurant-results portal or guaranteed history window was established for this guide, and no records request was submitted.
Put the old and new fields in separate columns
The earlier district form assigned one to four demerits; its failure rule included a score below 80 or any four-point violation. The new form has no pass/fail number. Connecticut DPH links the changed form. The district describes February 16, 2023 as the effective date; DPH says February 17. Describe a February 2023 transition and retain each actual report’s printed revision rather than imposing a single cutoff.
| Compare this | Earlier district report | Newer form |
|---|---|---|
| Headline measurement | Numerical score and old pass/fail rule | No numerical pass/fail score; read each marked item |
| Finding language | Demerit item and its observation | Priority, Priority Foundation, or Core classification and observation |
| Checklist mark | Earlier compliance notation | IN, OUT, N/O, or N/A as marked on the report |
| Follow-up evidence | Dated return report, if one exists | Correction due field, COS, R, reinspection box, and any later dated report |
The table is a translation aid for fields, not a conversion formula. A Priority item does not equal four former demerits. A new report with fewer marked items does not prove conditions improved, because the form asks different questions and records responses differently. Read the words accompanying each mark.
Read the new form without creating a score
The current DPH blank inspection form is EHS-108, revision February 16, 2023. Its compliance legend distinguishes in compliance, out of compliance, not observed, and not applicable. The last two are neither violations nor verified compliance. P, Pf, and C classify item violations; they are not points or the separate establishment risk-category field at the top.
Read COS (corrected on site), R (repeat), the correction-due field and the reinspection box with the dated observations. An onsite correction does not erase the finding. A due date plans a deadline; the later dated record must establish completion. Look for the return visit if reinspection is indicated, and preserve any separate closure or reopening document. None of these checklist marks alone establishes a whole-premises administrative action.
Imagine a hypothetical pair of reports for the same licensed location: an older routine report with a score, followed by a newer routine report using OUT and a Priority Foundation classification. Those invented fields illustrate how to make two columns; they are not a real establishment or claim about any inspection outcome. In a real pair, preserve the specific observation on each form, identify whether the same condition is described, and look for a dated reinspection or written verification before stating what changed. Even the same food item could be cited under a different form item after the transition.
The site’s inspection-report reading guide helps separate observation, correction, and follow-up once the correct local report is in hand. Keep the district’s own categories and dates in your notes rather than borrowing a grade scale from another town or state.
What the comparison can and cannot answer
Two matched reports can show what each inspector recorded on two visits, how the form classified the observations, and whether a later document recorded correction. They cannot produce a common numerical trend across different form systems. A blank new-score field is expected under the newer form, not a zero. Neither report is a safety guarantee for today. If a historical report or later correction record is missing, describe that gap and ask the district for the specific document instead of completing the timeline by inference.
Official sources checked October 5, 2026. The state form linked above is a blank template, and the comparison here uses no actual restaurant report or facility finding.