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 | Licensee denied the allegations, stating staff always have eyes on the children and parents are notified of any injury’s children sustain while in care via Bright Wheel. L1 further stated teachers watch all children while on the yard, even if the child is not in their class. In addition, L1 stated child (C1) told their parent in front of staff that another child (C2) threw a log at them on the yard and that their neck hurt. L1 further stated the logs are small, hollow and light weight. L1 stated she was unsure if C1 was taken to the doctor for medical treatment.
Staff interviews (S1-S4) all stated they inform parents of any injuries via Bright Wheel. S1 – S4 also stated they did not observe the incident with C1 but heard about it from other staff. S2 and S4 both stated C1 told them about an incident on the yard but were unsure when the incident occurred. S2 stated C1 told them C2 threw a log at them, while S4 stated C1 told them another child threw a log at them as well as pushed them. S2 and S4 both stated they were not told of the incident the day it occurred. S1 stated staff are always supervising children, and some children in the class like to argue over toys, pushing each other nothing more than normal kid behavior.
Adult interviews (A1-A3) confirmed they have been notified of injuries via Bright Wheel, while A5 stated their child never came home with an injury so they are unsure of the procedure. A1 and A3 further stated they can see how messages can get lost or missed on the Bright Wheel app if you are not familiar with how it works.
A4 and A5 both stated they feel when the children are outside there is not enough staff, A4 specifically stating staff cannot see all areas of the yard. A2 further stated there was a time they had to remind staff to keep an eye on their child as they were being bitten by another child. A3 stated they are unsure of staff to child ratios but feel there is adequate supervision for the number of children at the facility. Although the incident may have occurred there was not sufficient evidence obtained to substantiate that child C1’s injury resulted due to a lack of supervision
Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation occurred and therefore is determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with Licensee / Director, Milli Pintacsi and Adrean Takemoto. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.
|