Inspection · 2022-08-16

Based on record review and provider interview, the family day home did not ensure that all employees submit to fingerprinting and obtain results prior to employment.

Evidence:
1. Caregiver #2 did not have results of fingerprinting on file before working at the family day home.
2. The provider stated that Caregiver #2 is not a regular employee of the family day home and was just called to work that day due to an emergency.

Based on record review and provider interview, an employee of the family day home was employed before the home had the person?s completed sworn statement.

Evidence:
1. Caregiver #2 did not have a completed sworn statement on file.
2. The provider stated that Caregiver #2 is not a regular employee of the family day home and was just called to work that day due to an emergency.

Based on record review, the provider did not obtain documentation of physical examination for each child prior to the child?s attendance or within 30 days after the first day of attendance.

Evidence: Child #2?s (start date: 10/05/2020) record did not contain documentation of physical examination.

Based on record review, the provider did not maintain a record for each caregiver.

Evidence:
1. The provider did not have a record for Caregiver #2.
2. The provider stated that Caregiver #2 is not a regular employee of the family day home and was just called to work that day due to an emergency.

Based on observation and caregiver statement, caregivers were not able to speak in English as necessary to carry out job responsibilities.

Evidence:
1. Caregiver #1 and Caregiver #2 were unable to communicate in English during the monitoring inspection.
2. When asked a question, Caregiver #1 stated that they do not speak English and called the provider?s daughter on the phone to assist.
3. The provider?s granddaughter arrived shortly after and translated the information.

Based on record review, the provider did not obtain from each caregiver at the time of hire a current Report of Tuberculosis Screening form.

Evidence:
1. Caregiver #2 did not have a current Report of Tuberculosis Screening form.
2. The provider stated that Caregiver #2 is not a regular employee of the family day home and was just called to work that day due to an emergency.

Based on observation, areas and furnishings of the family day home, inside, were not maintained in a clean, safe and operable condition.

Evidence: There were multiple areas of chipped paint on the half wall that divides the main daycare room from the eating area.

Based on observation, potentially poisonous substances, materials and supplies were not stored in areas inaccessible to children.

Evidence:
1. One spray cleaner with bleach, one container of powder bathroom cleaner, one container of disinfecting wipes, one bottle of dish soap (warning label says to keep out of reach of children), and two claw hammers were in an unlocked closet, accessible to children.
2. One bottle of alcohol antiseptic and one bottle of hand sanitizer were on the half wall, accessible to children.

Based on observation, child-resistant protective covers were not installed on all unused electrical outlets accessible to children under five years of age.

Evidence:
1. There was one outlet uncovered by the blue couch in the main daycare area.
2. There was one outlet uncovered by the high chairs.
3. There was one outlet uncovered in the nap room.

Based on observation, all flammable and combustible materials were not stored in an area inaccessible to children.

Evidence: There was a multi-purpose lighter in an unlocked drawer, accessible to children.

Based on observation, the bathroom did not contain toilet tissue, liquid soap and paper towels.

Evidence: The bathroom provided for the children did not contain toilet tissue, liquid soap and paper towels.

Based on observation, the provider did not ensure that the total number of children receiving care at any one time does not exceed the maximum licensed capacity of the home.

Evidence:
1. The provider?s maximum licensed capacity is 12. At the time of inspection, there were 13 children present.
2. Caregiver #2 stated that Child #8 was her child. Child #8 was not enrolled in the family day home, but was present during the inspection.

Based on record review, the family day home did not keep a written record of children in attendance each day.

Evidence: The last day that the family day home recorded attendance was 07/28/2022.

Based on observation, cribs were provided for children over 12 months of age who were developmentally ready to sleep on a cot, rest mat, or bed.

Evidence:
1. Child #9 (age: 2 years) was observed in a crib during nap time.
2. Child #10 (age: 14 months) was observed in a crib during nap time.
3. Child #13 (age: 15 months) was observed in a crib during nap time.

Based on observation, cots and rest mats used for sleeping or napping by children other than infants did not have linens consisting of a top cover and a bottom.

Evidence:
1. Child #2 (age: 2 years) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
2. Child #4 (age: 20 months) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
3. Child #5 (age: 3 years) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
4. Child #11(age: 21 months) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
5. Child #12 (age: 3 years) was using a rest mat with a top cover and no bottom cover.

Based on observation, the provider did not ensure that a caregiver did not exceed 16 points.

Evidence: During the time of inspection, there were 13 children present, between the ages of 8 months and 3 years, totaling 42 points. There were 2 caregivers present during this time.

Based on record review, the family day home did not maintain an up-to-date record at the family day home for each enrolled child.

Evidence:
1. There was no record on site for Child #6 (start date: 08/08/2022).
2. There was no record on site for Child #7 (start date: 08/08/2022).

Based on observation, caregivers did not wash their hands with liquid soap and warm running water after diapering a child.

Evidence: Caregiver #2 did not wash their hands after diapering Child #9.

Based on observation, caregivers did not ensure that children?s hands were washed with liquid soap and warm running water after diapering.

Evidence: Caregiver #2 did not ensure that Child #9?s hands were washed after diapering.

Based on observation, the diapering surface was not nonabsorbent and washable and was not cleaned and sanitized after each use.

Evidence:
1. The diaper changing pad had a cloth cover.
2. Caregiver #2 did not clean and sanitize the diaper changing pad between diapering Child #9 and Child #8.

Based on observation, topical skin products were accessible to children.

Evidence: There were three diaper creams and one healing cream in bins on the changing table, accessible to children.

Based on record review, the provider did not obtain documentation that all children were adequately immunized, before a child may attend the family day home.

Evidence:
1. Child #2?s (start date: 10/05/2020) record did not contain documentation of immunization.
2. Child #5?s (start date: 08/19/2019) record did not contain documentation of immunization.

Based on record review, the provider did not obtain documentation of additional immunizations once every six months for children under the age of two years.

Evidence:
1. Child #3?s (age: 1 year) most recent immunization record was dated 12/06/2021.
2. Child #4?s (age: 20 months) most recent immunization record was dated 03/05/2021.