|
March 22, 2024 Laura Anne Samuelson, Authorized Agent Bridge Academy of Early Learning 19805 Headwaters Boulevard North Forest Lake, MN 55025-0000 License Number: 11116546 (Child Care Center) Program Location: 19805 Headwaters Boulevard North, Forest Lake, MN 55025-0000
Dear Laura Ann Samuelson: On October 12, 2023, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of citations 1, 4 and 6 in the Correction Order (Attachment A) issued to you by the Department of Human Services on September 20, 2023. You did not request reconsideration of the remaining citations. As a result, those citations are affirmed and are now final. SUMMARY OF CITATION AND RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION:
Citation 1: Violation: Staff distribution requirements were not maintained. A teacher or assistant teacher did not directly supervise an aide. Specifically, there was no education documentation available on-site to qualify a staff person (SP3) as a teacher. SP3 was therefore only aide-qualified at the time of the licensing visit. SP3 was working alone in a pre-kindergarten preschool classroom. Request for Reconsideration. You indicate in your reconsideration request that you believe SP3’s presence in the room was allowed in the rule. You indicate the pre-kindergarten program did not open until 7:45 a.m., that SP3 had met qualifications, and that SP3 was not exceeding 25% of the center’s daily hours at the time of the visit. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0034, subpart 1, “aide” means a staff person who carries out child care program activities under the supervision of a teacher or assistant teacher. An aide who is under 18 years old must be directly supervised by a teacher or assistant teacher at all times except when the aide is assisting with the supervision of sleeping children or assisting children with washing, toileting, and diapering. An aide must be at least 16 years old. Under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item D, except as provided in item B, staff distribution within each age category must follow the pattern in subitems (1) to (4). (1) The first staff member needed to meet the required staff-to-child ratio must be a teacher. (2) The second staff member must have at least the qualifications of a childcare aide. (3) The third staff member must have at least the qualifications of an assistant teacher. (4) The fourth staff member must have at least the qualifications of a childcare aide. The patterns in subitems (1) to (4) must be repeated until the number of staff needed to meet the staff-to-child ratio for each age category has been achieved. Item B indicates an assistant teacher may be substituted for a teacher during morning arrival and afternoon departure times if the total arrival and departure time does not exceed 25 percent of the center’s daily hours of operation. Reconsideration Determination. During the licensing visit, SP3 indicated they were a teacher in the pre-kindergarten room and were supervising nine children. No other staff were present in the pre-kindergarten room. Although the documentation form provided onsite indicated SP3 was teacher qualified, SP3’s transcripts did not have their name or the name of their college and therefore did not meet documentation requirements. SP3 was therefore considered an aide. The program did not indicate during the exit interview that they believed they were within the allowable 25 percent of hours to use the staff person as an aide. In the reconsideration request, you indicate the program was in compliance because the total arrival and departure time did not exceed 25 percent of the center’s daily hours of operation. However, the program operates from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which gives the program 2.87 hours of daily aide hours. The licensor was on site from 9:30 a.m. to 11: 30 a.m. The distribution of allowable hours is based on the center’s daily operating hours and not on individual classroom opening and closing times. Based on the available information, there is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 4: Violation: The program did not comply with annual fire extinguisher inspection requirements. Specifically, the fire extinguishers’ tags were missing the last inspected date. Request for Reconsideration. You indicate in your reconsideration request that the citation was incorrect, and you included photographs you indicate show an inspection date of February 22, 2023. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 16, fire extinguishers must be serviced annually by a qualified inspector. The name of the inspector and date of the inspection must be written on a tag attached to the extinguisher. Reconsideration Determination. The rule requires that fire extinguishers must be serviced annually by a qualified inspector and that the name of the inspector and the date of the inspection must be written on a tag attached to the extinguisher. Although a tag was shown during the licensing visit, it did not appear to be from a fire inspection but was instead signed by facility staff. With your reconsideration request, you submitted photographs of tags not shown during the licensing visit. The first photograph is of a tag that indicates a “system” was serviced by Nardini Fire Equipment, but the tag does not appear to be attached to a fire extinguisher as required by the rule. The second photograph contains a tag attached to a fire extinguisher, but It does not appear to show service by a qualified inspector as required by the rule. The third photograph does not appear to be attached to a fire extinguisher as required by the rule. As a result, there is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 6: Violation: The individual childcare program plan (ICCPP) for 1 of 1 (C1) children with a known allergy did not contain: a description of the allergy; specific triggers; avoidance techniques; symptoms of an allergic reaction; and procedures for responding to an allergic reaction, including medication, dosage, and doctor contact information. Request for Reconsideration. You indicate in your reconsideration request that the citation was incorrect because C1 did not have an allergy, and you indicate you clarified through an email dated September 5, 2023, that C1 did not have an allergy to egg. You also indicate that although the child’s parent initially indicate the child had an allergy to eggs, the parent submitted a new form indicating the child did not have an allergy. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), before admitting a child for care, the license holder must obtain documentation of any known allergy from the child’s parent or legal guardian or the child’s source of medical care. If a child has a known allergy, the license holder must maintain current information about the allergy in the child’s record and develop an individual childcare program plan as specified in Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. The individual childcare program plan must include but not be limited to a description of the allergy, specific triggers, avoidance techniques, symptoms of an allergic reaction, and procedures for responding to an allergic reaction, including medication, dosages, and a doctor’s contact information. Reconsideration Determination. Along with your reconsideration request, you provided a form dated September 19, 2023, and completed by the child’s parent. The form indicates that the child has no allergies but that a modified diet that avoids eggs is necessary. You also submitted a form dated September 8, 2023, completed by the child’s physician indicating the child has an egg allergy and that the child should avoid eggs as a condition that might result in an emergency. Documentation provided onsite at the time of the licensing visit showed a physician documented an egg allergy for the child on a health care summary. The updated form completed by the parent indicating the child did not have an allergy was not provided during the licensing visit or present in the child’s file. During the exit interview, the licensor advised the facility that the child was considered to have an allergy because it was documented as an allergy from the physician on the health care summary, and the licensor advised that updated physician information would be needed if it was determined to not be an allergy. The information provided and available at the time of the licensing visit indicated the child had a known allergy and that the program did not have an individual childcare program plan that contained required information. As a result, there is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the request for reconsideration and all the information submitted in response to the correction order. The Commissioner finds there is sufficient evidence to support the citations, and they are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,
Frances Simon Standing, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
