complaint·August 15, 2023

RP reported to Community Care Licensing (CCL) that on 05/30/2023 RP observed C1 "to have hives and to be white and red." On 05/30/2023, director self-reported an unusual incident with C1 with an allergic reaction to an unknown allergy. LPA reviewed individual meal record and meal pattern for the day of 05/30/2023 which indicated C1 ate formula, cereal, mac and cheese, pumpkin, mango, and raspberry. RP did submit medical records of C1 being seen that same day at the emergency room which state C1 had a severe allergic reaction but note submitted did not indicate what the reaction was to, and may return to school on 06/01/2023. Per interview with director on 06/7/2023, director stated she has not received any information regarding C1 allergies and does not feel comfortable having C1 back in care until allergy is identified. Based on the information provided, interviews and document review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Regarding count 2: Staff did not meet infant's diapering needs. RP reported to CCL that C1 sustained diaper rash at center and C1 is kept dirty at the center. LPA reviewed “Parent Consent for Administration of Medications and Medication Chart” signed and dated by parent on 05/30/2023 stating C1 is to be administered Aquaphor for “poopy diaper” as needed from 05/30/2023 until needed. Aquaphor was applied by staff member same day the consent form was given. Parents interviewed indicated their children’s diapering needs are being met. Based on the information provided, interviews and document review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Regarding count 3: Staff did not arrange emergency medical care for infant. Per director statement, C1 did notice C1 scratching face but did not appear to be in distress. RP stated C1 was rushed to emergency room upon pick up and that C1 parent’s stated C1 appeared to be in anaphylactic shock at that time. Evidence submitted did not state C1 was in distress rather his face was red, raised and with bumps upon pick up. No medical evidence was entered to support the child was in anaphylactic shock. Evidence entered did not indicate was C1 is/was allergic to. Majority of parents interviewed stated they are satisfied with the level of care and supervision being received and they would refer facility to other parents. Based on the information provided, interviews and document review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview was conducted with licensee. Copy of report and appeal rights provided. Notice of Site Visit (LIC 9213) posted during LPA inspection and must remain posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to maintain posting as required will result in a civil penalty of $100.00.