Inspection · 2023-03-30
Date
2023-03-30
Complaint Related
No
Licensing Inspector
Lynette A Storr
(703) 309-9153
(703) 309-9153
SHSIA monitoring inspection of an approved subsidy vendor to determine compliance with current subsidy requirements regarding the health and safety of children and to promote quality standards for the children in their care.
No
Areas Reviewed
8VAC20-780 Administration.
8VAC20-780 Staff Qualifications and Training.
8VAC20-780 Physical Plant.
8VAC20-780 Staffing and Supervision.
8VAC20-780 Programs.
8VAC20-780 Special Care Provisions and Emergencies
8VAC20-780 Special Services.
8VAC20-820 THE LICENSE.
8VAC20-770 Background Checks (8VAC20-770)
22.1 Background Checks Code, Carbon Monoxide
Inspector Notes
Conducted an unannounced monitoring inspection at 12:00pm. Observed 20 children + 3 direct-care staff. Ratios and supervision were in compliance. Children were observed napping during the inspection. Infants were having play time on the floor and napping in cribs. Classrooms were found to be clean and well supplied with toys and equipment for the children. Areas of non-compliance were found with standards and laws reviewed. Questions about this inspection may be directed to pamela.sneed@doe.virginia.gov
4/20/23-A revised inspection report was issued to the licensee.
Violations
10Standard 22.1-289.035-B-4
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that an out-of-state background search did not include required information.
Evidence:
1. The sex offender search for Staff #2 did not include the staff person's name and date of search.
Evidence:
1. The sex offender search for Staff #2 did not include the staff person's name and date of search.
Plan of Correction: Staff person's name and date were added on staff #2 sex offender search of out-of-state [sic]
Standard 8VAC20-770-40-D-6
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that 1 of 4 staff records did not include a completed central registry search (CRS) within 90-days of employment.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 was hired 7/21/22. The CRS was dated as completed 2/23/22.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 was hired 7/21/22. The CRS was dated as completed 2/23/22.
Plan of Correction: We have ordered staff #4 to re-do the CRS. Staff #4 is taking the appointment now to do it. We should expect the new one to arrive within mid of next week [sic]
Standard 8VAC20-770-60-B
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that 1 of 4 staff records did not include true information on the sworn disclosure statement.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? The sworn disclosure statement dated 1/6/23 stated ?no? to having lived out of the State of Virginia in the previous 5 years.
2. The job application submitted by Staff #4 indicated otherwise.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? The sworn disclosure statement dated 1/6/23 stated ?no? to having lived out of the State of Virginia in the previous 5 years.
2. The job application submitted by Staff #4 indicated otherwise.
Plan of Correction: Staff #4 corrected the sworn disclosure statement during the inspection.
Standard 8VAC20-780-160-A
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that 2 of 4 staff records did not include a TB screening at the time of employment and prior to coming into contact with children that was completed within 30-calendar days prior to the date of employment.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? Date of employment 7/21/22. Date of TB screening 2/4/22.
2. Staff #5 ? Date of employment 9/20/22. Date of TB screening 8/2/21.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? Date of employment 7/21/22. Date of TB screening 2/4/22.
2. Staff #5 ? Date of employment 9/20/22. Date of TB screening 8/2/21.
Plan of Correction: 1. Staff #4 renewed TB test and now is in file. Test reading date: 4/11/23
2. Staff #5 renewed TB test and now is in file. Test reading date: 4/12/23
2. Staff #5 renewed TB test and now is in file. Test reading date: 4/12/23
Standard 8VAC20-780-190-A
Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, it was determined that Staff #5 who has been working as the program director does not meet any of the 4 program director qualification options.
Evidence:
1. During the inspection, there were multiple phone conversations between the inspector and owners who were unsure which option they used to qualify Staff #5 and asked the inspector which option would qualify Staff #5. The inspector advised the owners that the qualification determination should already have been made and advise the inspector which option they were using. The owners advised the inspector that Staff #5 was qualified using option #4.
2. Considering option #4, there was no documentation of a minimum of 2 years programmatic experience with 1 year in a staff supervisory capacity and at least one of the following education backgrounds-(1) 1-year early childhood certificate from a college/university that consists of at least 30 semester hours; (2) a child development credential that requires a high school diploma, 480 hours working with children in a group including a supervised practicum, including determination of competency in specific child-related areas, and at least 120 hours of child-related training taught by an organization with expertise in early childhood teacher preparation which includes documentation of the trainer?s qualifications; (3) or a Montessori certification.
3. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating that Staff #5 was qualified using option #1.
4. Considering option #1, the graduate degree is not in a child-related field, and the transcripts did not reflect child-related or teaching coursework. The inspector reviewed course descriptions from the issuing education institution and were determined to be not child or teaching related.
5. The inspector proceeded to consider option #2. The bachelor?s degree is not in a child-related field, and the transcripts did not reflect child-related or teaching coursework.
6. The inspector proceeded to consider option #3. The college transcripts did not include a minimum of 12 semester hours of courses in a child-related field.
Evidence:
1. During the inspection, there were multiple phone conversations between the inspector and owners who were unsure which option they used to qualify Staff #5 and asked the inspector which option would qualify Staff #5. The inspector advised the owners that the qualification determination should already have been made and advise the inspector which option they were using. The owners advised the inspector that Staff #5 was qualified using option #4.
2. Considering option #4, there was no documentation of a minimum of 2 years programmatic experience with 1 year in a staff supervisory capacity and at least one of the following education backgrounds-(1) 1-year early childhood certificate from a college/university that consists of at least 30 semester hours; (2) a child development credential that requires a high school diploma, 480 hours working with children in a group including a supervised practicum, including determination of competency in specific child-related areas, and at least 120 hours of child-related training taught by an organization with expertise in early childhood teacher preparation which includes documentation of the trainer?s qualifications; (3) or a Montessori certification.
3. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating that Staff #5 was qualified using option #1.
4. Considering option #1, the graduate degree is not in a child-related field, and the transcripts did not reflect child-related or teaching coursework. The inspector reviewed course descriptions from the issuing education institution and were determined to be not child or teaching related.
5. The inspector proceeded to consider option #2. The bachelor?s degree is not in a child-related field, and the transcripts did not reflect child-related or teaching coursework.
6. The inspector proceeded to consider option #3. The college transcripts did not include a minimum of 12 semester hours of courses in a child-related field.
Plan of Correction: We have moved staff #5 back as a Center Director Trainee. We have placed one of our experienced staff as our center Director. staff #5 got a certification of the 10-hours of management training. Staff #5 also started taking CDA courses. [sic]
Standard 8VAC20-780-190-B
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that there was no documentation of additional education and training for a program director without management experience.
Evidence:
1. There was no documentation of previous management experience for Staff #5.
2. There was no documentation that Staff #5 had completed at least one college course in a business-related field, nor was there documentation that the program director had received 10-hours of management training, or that Staff #5 had completed one child care management course that covers planning, budgeting, staffing, and monitoring.
Evidence:
1. There was no documentation of previous management experience for Staff #5.
2. There was no documentation that Staff #5 had completed at least one college course in a business-related field, nor was there documentation that the program director had received 10-hours of management training, or that Staff #5 had completed one child care management course that covers planning, budgeting, staffing, and monitoring.
Plan of Correction: On 4/4/23 the inspector received an email from the owners that included training certificates stating that "6 months" of training was provided to Staff #5.
Standard 8VAC20-780-210-A-4-a
Based on records reviewed, it was determined that there was no documentation that 1 of 2 staff working as a program leader (lead teacher) had received required training within 6 months prior to being promoted or beginning work, or one month after being promoted or beginning work.
Evidence:
1. 1. Staff #6 began working as a lead teacher on 11/28/22.
2. There was no documentation that Staff #6 had received 24 hours of training related to the care of children.
3. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners that included documentation that Staff #6 received 16 hours of training related to the care of children.
Evidence:
1. 1. Staff #6 began working as a lead teacher on 11/28/22.
2. There was no documentation that Staff #6 had received 24 hours of training related to the care of children.
3. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners that included documentation that Staff #6 received 16 hours of training related to the care of children.
Plan of Correction: Staff #6 had received 24 hours of training related to the care of children. We have double checked staff #6 file and found copies of total of 61 hours training certificates. 4/4/23 we sent to the inspector an email including only the extra 16 hours of training reinforcement that The Nest Academy gives to staff before promotion because of communication confusion. WE ARE DEVELOPING A RECORDS FILING SYSTEM TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR INSPECTION AND AVOID FUTURE CONFUSINS. [sic]
Standard 8VAC20-780-440-E
Based on observations made it was determined that there was not at least 12? of space between occupied cots.
Evidence:
1. In 1 of 2 classrooms where children were napping on cots, there were 3 occupied cots pushed together.
2. There was no space for staff to walk between the cots.
Evidence:
1. In 1 of 2 classrooms where children were napping on cots, there were 3 occupied cots pushed together.
2. There was no space for staff to walk between the cots.
Plan of Correction: We reinforced and reviewed with all staff the importance of always maintaining at least 12" of space between occupied cots.
Standard 8VAC20-780-70
Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, it was determined that 3 of 4 staff records did not include required documentation.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? (1) The record did not include the accurate date of hire. The date recorded was 1/22/22. The date verbally provided to the inspector was 7/21/22. (2) The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Lead Teacher. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating the job title is Assistant Director. (3) The education diploma on-file was not verifiable, as it was not written in English and a translated copy was not on-file or made available to the inspector.
2. Staff #5 ? (1) The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Lead Teacher. The job title verbally provided to the inspector was Acting Director. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating the job title is Program Director. (2) The education diplomas were not in a child-related field and the subsequent transcripts on-file did not include required coursework.
3. Staff #6 ? The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Assistant Teacher (Aide). The job title verbally provided to the inspector was Lead Teacher.
Evidence:
1. Staff #4 ? (1) The record did not include the accurate date of hire. The date recorded was 1/22/22. The date verbally provided to the inspector was 7/21/22. (2) The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Lead Teacher. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating the job title is Assistant Director. (3) The education diploma on-file was not verifiable, as it was not written in English and a translated copy was not on-file or made available to the inspector.
2. Staff #5 ? (1) The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Lead Teacher. The job title verbally provided to the inspector was Acting Director. On 4/4/23, the inspector received an email from the owners stating the job title is Program Director. (2) The education diplomas were not in a child-related field and the subsequent transcripts on-file did not include required coursework.
3. Staff #6 ? The record did not include the current job title. The job title was recorded as Assistant Teacher (Aide). The job title verbally provided to the inspector was Lead Teacher.
Plan of Correction: 1. On 4/4/23 the inspector received an email from the owners that included a copy of diplomas translated into English.
2. Staff #4 started training with us to become and assistant Director. She is still not an assistant Director but only trainee. [sic]
2. Staff #4 started training with us to become and assistant Director. She is still not an assistant Director but only trainee. [sic]
Standard 8VAC20-820-120-E-2
Based on observations made and interview conducted it was determined that the findings of the most recent inspection report were not posted in the facility.
Evidence:
1. The violation notice from the 9/8/22 inspection was not posted on the premises.
2. The program director did not know where the violation notice might be.
Evidence:
1. The violation notice from the 9/8/22 inspection was not posted on the premises.
2. The program director did not know where the violation notice might be.
Plan of Correction: Violation notice from 9/8/22 was posted on parents board by the entrance foyer of our facility. We reinforced with staff #5 where we keep records of them in our file cabinet.