Inspection · 2022-11-18

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 the provider being sick.

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 the provider being sick.

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:
1. Child #2?s (start date: 02/10/2020) record did not contain documentation of physical examination.
2. Child #6?s (start date: 04/04/2022) 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 inspection.
2. When asked a question, Caregiver #1 stated that they do not speak English.

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 the provider being sick.

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

Evidence:
1. Two bottles of bleach, one spray glass cleaner, one container of powder bathroom cleaner, two containers of disinfecting wipes, one bottle of dish soap (warning label says to keep out of reach of children), one antiseptic alcohol spray, one bottle of hand sanitizer (warning label says to keep out of reach of children), and two claw hammers were in an unlocked closet, accessible to children.
2. A bottle of mouthwash was in an unlocked cabinet, accessible to children, in the bathroom used by the children.
3. A bottle of cleaning vinegar (warning label says to keep out of reach of children), was located on the bottom shelf of the gray cabinet, accessible to children, in the bathroom used by the children.

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

Evidence: There were two lighters 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 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. Child #7 is the child of Caregiver #2. Child #7 was not enrolled in the family day home, but was present and receiving care during the inspection.

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 #3 (age: 3 years) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
2. Child #4 (age: 2 years) was using a cot with a top cover and no bottom cover.
3. Child #8 (age: 3 years) was using a cot 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 5 months and 3 years, totaling 38 points. There were 2 caregivers present during this time.

Based on record review, the provider did not obtain all required information for children?s records.

Evidence: The record for Child #1 did not contain a name, address and telephone number for a second designated person to contact in case of an emergency.

Based on record review, parents were not provided all required written information before the child?s first day of attendance.

Evidence:
1. The provider did not indicate the policies for the administration of medications on the paperwork provided to the parents of Child#1 (start date: 10/17/2022), Child #4 (start date: 08/09/2021) and Child #5 (start date: 09/01/2020).
2. The provider did not indicate whether or not there is liability insurance on the paperwork provided to the parents of Child #1 and Child #6 (start date: 04/04/2022).
3. The provider did not list a relocation site on the emergency preparedness and response plan provided to the parents of Child #1, Child #4 and Child #6.

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

Evidence: There was one diaper cream, one eczema cream, one cortisone ointment and one healing cream in bins on the changing table, accessible to children.

Based on record review, the provider did not document in each child?s record, the method of verification of the child?s age and identity.

Evidence:
1. The record for Child #1 (start date: 10/17/2022) did not contain documentation of the method of verification of the child?s age and identity.
2. The record for Child #2 (start date: 02/10/2020) did not contain documentation of the method of verification of the child?s age and identity.
3. The record for Child #6 (start date: 04/04/2022) did not contain documentation of the method of verification of the child?s age and identity.

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: 02/10/2020) record did not contain documentation of immunization.