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 | LPA interviewed Director and staff. It was stated during interviews that no one observed alleged incident happen, nor did child #1 notify staff of alleged incident. LPA obtained the Changing Log and determined that on July 17, 2019, child #1 was changed by staff #1 at 12:21pm and was picked up by their representative at 2:13pm. It was stated during interviews that nap time is from 12:30pm to 2:30pm and when child was picked up on the date of alleged incident, the child's representative changed child #1's Pull-Up and did not notify staff of the abrasion. LPA determined that if child #1 would have been changed after nap time by facility staff, there would have been documentation from staff #2 as staff #2 was in charge of Changing Duties after nap time. LPA obtained a copy of sign-in/out sheet.
It was also stated during interviews with staff that staff use gloves to change children. LPA obtained a Pull-Up that child #1 would have worn. LPA also obtained detailed documentation of child #1 with over ten entries that consist of child's daily activities with photos included. LPA also obtained copies of previous ouch reports and emails from Director to child's representative regarding the alleged incident.
The reporting party and the facility provided statements that conflict with one another in regards to Child #1 sustaining injuries from another child due to the lack of supervision. Due to the location of the alleged bite mark at the child's upper left thigh near the buttocks, the Discharge Form stating that there was an abrasion but not clearly stating a bite mark, and the possibility that the abrasion is an impression from Velcro from the child's Pull-Up, and child's representative not noticing the alleged mark when child was picked up and changed that day by child's representative, LPA is unable to determine if the child sustained a bite mark or that the incident occurred at the facility.
During interviews, staff were able to recall incidents involving child #1 and were able to provide documentation. A staff member providing adequate visual supervision does not mean that he or she would be able to prevent every single child-on-child interaction resulting in injury. There is also a lack of evidence to support that the facility was negligent in informing child's representative of the alleged incident as it was not observed by the facility staff.
Although the above allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegation are Unsubstantiated.
Report Continues on Next Page |