Inspection · 2023-06-21

Based on caregiver record review, the family day home did not obtain results of a central registry search within 30 days of employment for all caregivers.

Evidence: At the time of inspection, Caregiver #2 (start date: 05/08/2023) did not have results of a central registry search on file.

Based on record review, a substitute provider?s record did not contain all information.

Evidence: Caregiver #2?s record did not contain documentation that two or more references were checked before employment. There was only documentation of one reference checked.

Based on record review and provider interview, the provider did not maintain written documentation of each caregiver?s applicable education and programmatic experience.

Evidence:
1. The provider stated that Caregiver #2 is the designated substitute provider for the family day home.
2. The provider did not maintain documentation of Caregiver #2?s applicable education or programmatic experience.

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

Evidence:
1. One wasp and hornet killer spray, one air freshener spray and one multi-purpose cleaner were located on a shelf in the main daycare area, accessible to children.
2. A wasp and hornet killer spray was located next to a bowl that contained bananas and apples.
3. A window cleaner was located in an unlocked cabinet, accessible to children, under the sink in the bathroom used by the children.
4. A bottle of adhesive remover was located on the second shelf of an unlocked closet, accessible to children.

Based on observation, not all small electrical appliances were unplugged while not being used by the caregiver or with children under close supervision.

Evidence: A toaster oven in the kitchen on the main level was plugged in while not in use.

Based on observation, the family day home had an inoperable smoke detector.

Evidence:
1. The smoke detector in the nap room was missing from the mounting bracket on the ceiling.
2. The smoke detector was located on a shelf in the nap room, without a battery, making it inoperable.

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

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

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

Evidence:
1. Child #1 was present at the family day home during the inspection.
2. The provider stated that Child #1 was attending the family day home temporarily. Child #1 attended the family day home for a half day on the day prior to the inspection, and the current day, but would no longer be attending the family day home after June 21, 2023.
3. The provider did not have a record for Child #1 during the inspection.

Based on observation, when topical skin products were used, the product was not labeled with the child?s name.

Evidence:
1. A healing ointment, located in the small top drawer of the changing table, was not labeled. Caregiver #1 stated that the healing ointment belonged to Child #2.
2. A healing ointment, located in the small top drawer of the changing table, was not labeled. Caregiver #1 stated that the healing ointment belonged to Child #3.
3. An anti-fungal cream, located in the second large drawer of the changing table, was not labeled. Caregiver #1 stated that the anti-fungal cream belonged to Child #4.

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

Evidence:
1. There was one diaper cream, two healing ointments, one moisturizing cream, and one anti-inflammatory cream in the unlocked small top drawer of the changing table, accessible to children.
2. There was one athlete?s foot cream and one healing ointment in the unlocked large second drawer of the changing table, accessible to children.

Based on observation, bottles were not labeled with the child?s full name and the date when more than one infant was in care.

Evidence:
1. At the time of inspection, there were two bottles in the refrigerator that were not labeled with the child?s full name and the date.
2. Caregiver #1 stated that one bottle belonged to Child #4 and the second bottle belonged to Child #5.