Fa­cil­ity failed to su­per­vise

Care In­spec­torate hit out

Rutherglen Reformer - - News - Dou­glas Dickie

An out of school ser­vice op­er­at­ing in the Ruther­glen and Cam­bus­lang area has been told it failed to en­sure kids were su­per­vised.

The fa­cil­ity, which can­not be named for le­gal rea­sons, was also told it had failed to im­ple­ment child pro­tec­tion pro­ce­dures.

The re­port, from the Care In­spec­torate, was pro­duced fol­low­ing an al­leged in­ci­dent in the fa­cil­ity’s toi­let ear­lier this year.

A com­plaint was made by a par­ent fol­low­ing the in­ci­dent, which al­legedly in­volved two chil­dren.

The Care In­spec­torate said the fa­cil­ity operates a toi­let pass sys­tem for chil­dren go­ing to the toi­let.

On the day of the in­ci­dent, staff “could not re­call who had given the toi­let passes to the chil­dren in ques­tion and they were un­able to say how long the chil­dren had been away.”

The re­port states: “We looked at the toi­let pro­ce­dure which did not clearly iden­tify how chil­dren would be mon­i­tored when toi­let passes were given out.

“In sum­mary, at the time of the in­ci­dent the mon­i­tor­ing process was not ef­fec­tive as there was no ev­i­dence as to when the chil­dren went to the toi­let or how long they had been in the toi­let.

“How­ever, while this part of the com­plaint is up­held we are sat­is­fied that fol­low­ing the in­ci­dent, ac­tion has been taken to min­imise the risk to chil­dren and the toi­let pro­ce­dure has been up­dated to re­flect this.”

The Care In­spec­torate also con­cluded the fa­cil­ity failed to con­tact the rel­e­vant agen­cies fol­low­ing the in­ci­dent.

The re­port said staff “did not see the in­ci­dent as a child pro­tec­tion con­cern and did not con­sider con­tact­ing so­cial work or the po­lice.”

The In­spec­torate spoke with the man­ager of the fa­cil­ity, the owner and two staff mem­bers.

They also looked at child pro­tec­tion pol­icy, in­ci­dent re­ports, two staff state­ments, a child pro­tec­tion of­fi­cer state­ment, toi­let pro­ce­dure and up­dated pro­ce­dure and the toi­let check list.

The par­ent who made the com­plaint crit­i­cised the fa­cil­ity for al­low­ing their child to go out to play af­ter the in­ci­dent.

They added: “I don’t un­der­stand why that was seen as ac­cept­able.

“As a par­ent, I am quite shocked to find that not one of the in­di­vid­u­als who were there to en­sure the chil­dren’s safety knew who gave them the pass and no-one knew who had given the chil­dren the pass. “It’s alarm­ing and con­cern­ing. “I would hope the fa­cil­ity takes all this on board. They should be open and trans­par­ent with par­ents and they are hav­ing to build the trust back up.

“We have a child who is trau­ma­tised with what went on and does not sleep at night. Hope­fully they will re­cover.”

It’s alarm­ing and con­cern­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.