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 | Six staff members submitted written statements regarding the incident that shared they were present during the incident and all staff denied that a child had been left in a soiled diaper. All staff present during the incident stated the diaper log showed the child’s diaper had been changed approximately two hours prior to being picked up and they consistently check children’s diapers every 1-2 hours depending on the needs of the child. Five staff were interviewed on 3/19/25 and all staff indicated that the diaper log was filled out appropriately for the day in question and the child did not have any diaper rash prior to the following day. The staff member (S2), responsible for the child during the incident indicated there were more children present than normal for that time frame and they did feel overwhelmed. S2 maintained that the child was changed approximately 2 hours prior to pickup and C1 has sensitive skin and was playing in the sand box which could have contributed to the rash.
Eight parents were interviewed on 4/25/25 and all denied having any issues or concerns regarding their children being left in a soiled diaper for an extended period of time. All parents indicated they were informed of diaper changes through the SEER app and none had experienced their child with a rash they felt was caused by being left in a soiled diaper.
LPA obtained and reviewed clock in/clock out records for staff and children. LPA reviewed diaper logs for all children in care during the incident. The diaper log for C1 indicated C1 was changed approximately two hours prior to the incident. LPA reviewed a photo of C1's rash the day after the incident.
During today’s inspection, the facility was toured, 1 staff and 12 children were present. LPA did not observe any title 22 violations.
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated.
Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Angelica Lopez. Appeal rights were provided.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. |