Inspection · 2022-05-04

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure the home was equipped with at least one carbon monoxide detector.

Evidence:
Caregiver #1 stated a carbon monoxide detector has not been purchased as of May 4, 2022 when the licensing inspectors asked to see the carbon monoxide detector. The family day home was built before 2015.

Based on documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not obtain a central registry finding for one household member within 30 days of the household member becoming 14 years old.

Evidence:

Caregiver #1 stated Household Member #1 turned 14 years old in the Fall of 2021. When the licensing inspector asked to review the central registry finding for Household Member #1, Caregiver #1 stated it had not been requested as of May 4, 2022.

Based on documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not ensure a substitute providers' record contained the required information.

Evidence:
1. The records for Caregiver #1 and Caregiver #2 did not documentation of the education and training.
2. The record for Caregiver #2 did not contain the name address and telephone number of a person to be notified in an emergency and the substitute providers' records containing documentation of the time of arrivals and departures times.

Based on observation and interviews, the caregiver did not ensure the use of a substitute provider was limited to no more than a total of 240 hours per calendar year.

Evidence:
Caregiver #1 arrived at the home at approximately 10:10am. Caregiver #1 stated since February 2022, she had been at another location from approximately 6:00am until 10:30am to 11:00am, Monday through Friday.

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure all areas and furnishings of the family day home, inside and outside, were maintained in a clean, safe, and operable condition.

The licensing inspectors observed sections of the wooden fencing surrounding the backyard including the outdoor play equipment had fallen over, creating unsafe conditions. Caregiver #1 stated the children play on the outdoor play equipment and plans have been made to fix and replace the broken wooden fence.

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure the home was equipped with a fire extinguisher that met the Uniform Statewide Building Code.

Evidence:
The licensing inspectors requested to see the fire extinguisher. Caregiver #1 looked for the fire extinguisher while the licensing inspectors were on site but could not locate it.

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure children under two years of age and children over two years of age who are not developmentally ready to climb or descend stairs without supervision had access to stairs.

Evidence:
1. The mounted gate at the bottom of the stairs located in the child care area was left open for approximately 45 minutes. There were seven children in the child care area ranging in age 15 months to four years of age.
2. A stairway leading to the second floor of the home did not contain a barrier or gate blocking children's access to the stairs. The bathroom used by the children is located across from the stairway.
3. Caregiver #1 stated the barrier that was used to block the second floor stairway was moved to the outdoor shed.

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure stationary outdoor playground equipment was not installed on a hard surface.

Evidence:
The licensing inspectors observed stationary outdoor playground equipment sitting on the bare ground. Caregiver #1 stated she is going to replace the climbing equipment and add resilient surfacing underneath the play equipment.

Based on observation, documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not ensure an additional caregiver was present when the caregiver exceed 16 points based on the ages of the children in care.

Evidence:
Two licensing inspectors arrived at the home on May 4, 2022 at approximately 9:55am. Upon arrival, the licensing inspectors observed seven children in care with one caregiver, Caregiver #2. The children ranged in age from 15 months to four years, for a total of 19 points. The attendance record for the day indicated there were seven children in care. Caregiver #2 stated Caregiver #1 was on her way. Caregiver #1 arrived at the home at approximately 10:10am.

Based on documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not ensure an up-to-date record at the family day home for each enrolled child.
Evidence:

The licensing inspector requested to review seven children's records. The provider stated she had taken some of children's records from the home for training purposed. The provider could not locate three children's records while the licensing inspectors were one site.

Based on review of five children's records, the caregiver did not maintain the required information in the children's records.

Evidence:

1. The records for Child #3 and Child #5 did not contain documentation of the child?s first date of attending the family day home.
2. The records for Child #2 (start date 04/09/2019), Child #3 (start date not documented), Child #4 (start date 04/06/2021) and Child #5 (start date not documented) did not contain documentation that the caregiver reviewed the required emergency contact information listed in child's record with parent, obtaining parent's signed acknowledgement at least annually.
3. The records for Child #3 and Child #5 did not contain the physical addresses for the two listed emergency contacts and did not contain proof of the child?s age and identity.

Based on observation and interview, the caregiver did not ensure a working portable battery-operate weather band radio was available to caregivers at all times.

Evidence:
The licensing inspectors asked to view the working portable battery-operated weather band radio. Caregiver #1 and Caregiver #2 looked for the radio during the inspection and could not find it.

Based on documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not have a written emergency preparedness and response plan available.

Evidence:

The provider stated the written emergency preparedness and response plan was taken out of the home and used for training when the licensing inspectors asked to review the written emergency preparedness and response plan.

Based on documentation review and interview, the caregiver did not maintain documentation of emergency evacuation and shelter-in-place drills.

Evidence:

The provider stated the documentation of emergency evacuation and shelter-in place drills were taken out of the home and used for training when the licensing inspectors asked to review the emergency drill log. The provider stated the drills are practiced as required.