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 | The Reporting Party (RP) stated that C1, contracted Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease (HFMD), with symptoms appearing on a Saturday and a diagnosis confirmed the following Sunday. The RP learned of another child, C2, also having HFMD the week of June 2nd, and indicated that the facility did not inform parents of the outbreak until after the RP reported them.
The RP expressed significant concerns about the center's hygiene and cleanliness, suggesting it could use a lot of work and noting that many children are frequently sick.
Interviews with Parents 2-5 revealed some validation of the HFMD outbreak and concerns from some parents about delayed communication regarding outbreaks and the need for more thorough cleaning protocols, though some parents also expressed satisfaction with the center.
Interviews with Staff 1-6 generally confirmed awareness of a Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease (HFMD) outbreak. Most staff stated that parents were notified via the BrightWheel app and posted letters, typically immediately after becoming aware of multiple cases. However, Staff 1 acknowledged an initial delay in broad parent notification when only one child was diagnosed. Staff consistently reported increased sanitization efforts, including daily cleaning and a professional deep clean by 4M Sanitizing Service on June 16, 2025.
LPA Dunlap's review of records included an invoice and video footage confirming 4M Sanitizing Service cleaned the facility on June 16, 2025. A parent letter about Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease, dated June 16, 2025, was confirmed to have been sent to parents via the BrightWheel app on the same date at 1:13 PM, stating at least two students had contracted the illness. The facility handbook was reviewed and notably did not contain a specific policy for Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease, though it outlined general sick child policies.
Based on interviews and documents reviewed. There is not sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the facility did not consistently take all reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. The facility followed the necessary physical protocols. Therefore, there is not a preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Page 2 of 3
|