1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | During the staff interview, all interviewed staff members did not disclose witnessing any staff inappropriately touching any child. Licensee stated the following: The diaper changing station is in one of the bedrooms. Staff members check the children’s diapers when they arrive and every hour after that. Facility does not have diaper changing log. Staff would communicate unusual incidents like rashes to parents via text. Staff members take turns changing diapers. If the children had challenging behaviors, licensee would talk to the children and communicate it with the parent. If there’s a biter at the program, licensee would keep that child with licensee until the child stops biting. Licensee would inform the parents right away if any child starts biting.
Staff # 2 (S2) stated the following: S2 changed the children’s diapers when S2 arrived at 8:30am. At 10:30am, S2 checked the children to see if they needed diaper changing. If they didn’t need diaper changing at 10:30am, S2 checked them again at 11am. At 12:30pm, S2 changed the children diaper and S2 changed them again at 2:30pm after they wake up from nap. If the children had diaper rashes, S2 put rash cream on and informed licensee about it so licensee can tell the parents. S2 would inform licensee if the children were acting weird or didn’t want to be changed.
S3 stated the following: licensee and S3 took turns changing the children’s diaper and the diaper changing station is in one of the bedrooms. S3 would tell licensee and licensee would talk to the parents if S3 observed any diaper rash on the children. On the unknown date, S3 disclosed observing a scratch on C1’s private area while S3 changed C1’s diaper. C1 must have been itchy and self-scratching. The scratch looked old and the skin was a bit broken, but not bleeding. S3 informed licensee about it and licensee informed C1’s parents about it. The parents provided the facility with medicated cream to put on the C1’s scratch.
During the children interview, 5 of 5 children did not disclose any inappropriate behavior of staff toward the children. LPA was unable to interview C1 due to being non-verbal and too young in age.
LPA contacted 7 parents for an interview and was able to interview 2 parents. Both parents love the program and have no concerns.
LPA reviewed the medical record and there was no concern.
Based on the information gathered from LPA’s interviews and records review, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation of child was inappropriately touched by an unknown person. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Page 2 of 3
|