Nursery failed to report injury

This Is Wiltshire: Sure Start, in Everleigh Road, Penhill Sure Start, in Everleigh Road, Penhill

NURSERY management at Sure Start Pinehurst and Penhill was exposed as inadequate by Ofsted after inspectors were called in to investigate an unreported injury to a child.

In a report published yesterday by the education watchdog, Bright Start Day Nursery, which operates under the Sure Start banner, was ruled as inadequate in two of three areas.

The main focus of the report was on the management’s failure to ensure Ofsted was informed of a child trapping their fingers in a door within the required 14 days.

The management was also criticised for its failure to ensure staff follow risk assessment procedures, which resulted in the child’s injury.

Inspector Aileen Finan wrote: “The inspection was brought forward following information received about an accident to a child that occurred at the nursery.

“Staff are required to complete daily checks on the environment. However, an accident occurred because these checks were not robust and staff did not follow the risk assessment procedures appropriately.

“This poor practice placed children’s safety and well-being at risk and resulted in an injury to a child.”

The nursery was inspected last December, and the inspection before that, in September 2010, rated provision there as good.

The child’s injury expedited an inspection which exposed wide-ranging flaws in the nursery, which will now undergo a follow-up inspection before June.

Elsewhere in the report, Ms Finan wrote: “Staff lack confidence in how to extend the learning opportunities during group times to provide a more purposeful learning experience for children.”

The nursery is run with support from Swindon Council and has 50 children on its roll. The nursery is also in receipt of funding for two, three and four-year-old children.

A Swindon Council spokesman said: “The Ofsted inspection came as a result of an unfortunate accident where a child had trapped their fingers in a door.

“The nursery takes health and safety extremely seriously and notified all parents of the incident before immediately reviewing its procedures and practices.

“An action plan has been put in place to ensure that incidents of this nature are less likely to occur.

“However, the report does state that risk assessments for indoor and outdoor environments are undertaken to promote children’s safety.

“The Ofsted report highlighted a number of positive features, namely that staff have a sound understanding of learning and development requirements and that children are making the expected progress.

“The council is confident the nursery will meet all of the necessary requirements set out in the Ofsted report.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends aren't. sorry just one of those odd things that doesn't really make sense.
Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends aren't. sorry just one of those odd things that doesn't really make sense. house on the hill
  • Score: 6

9:26am Thu 27 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

house on the hill wrote:
Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends aren't. sorry just one of those odd things that doesn't really make sense.
Very true. And - by far - the most abuse and crimes committed against children are carried out by their immediate family.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends aren't. sorry just one of those odd things that doesn't really make sense.[/p][/quote]Very true. And - by far - the most abuse and crimes committed against children are carried out by their immediate family. ChannelX
  • Score: 6

10:13am Thu 27 Mar 14

spiller1928 says...

Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning –
NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.
Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare. spiller1928
  • Score: 0

10:50am Thu 27 Mar 14

swindondad says...

spiller1928 wrote:
Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.
Spiller please could you provide your "source" for this information.
[quote][p][bold]spiller1928[/bold] wrote: Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.[/p][/quote]Spiller please could you provide your "source" for this information. swindondad
  • Score: 2

11:31am Thu 27 Mar 14

spiller1928 says...

HERE

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/288322
/140310_Regulation_o
f_Childcare_Report_a
nd_Response_final.pd
f
HERE https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/288322 /140310_Regulation_o f_Childcare_Report_a nd_Response_final.pd f spiller1928
  • Score: -1

12:34pm Thu 27 Mar 14

swindondad says...

spiller1928 wrote:
Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.
So having read the document you linked (thank you for that) its seems the government are just increasing the existing two hour limit to three hours.

I do not think it is a good idea but it is hardly as dramatic as your initial post made it appear.
[quote][p][bold]spiller1928[/bold] wrote: Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.[/p][/quote]So having read the document you linked (thank you for that) its seems the government are just increasing the existing two hour limit to three hours. I do not think it is a good idea but it is hardly as dramatic as your initial post made it appear. swindondad
  • Score: 3

1:58pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

spiller1928 wrote:
Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning –
NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.
Are you suggesting that the only people who are able to look after children properly are strangers who are paid to do so?

Many of whom, these days, are minimum wage (or less) mid-teenage girls, often with only have a basic grasp of spoken English.
[quote][p][bold]spiller1928[/bold] wrote: Well this great government of ours, who purport to care so passionately about the welfare of children, are intending to allow family and friends to look after other peoples children, with pay or reward, for up to 3 hours a day, meaning – NO Ofsted registration, NO training, NO delivery of the EYFS governance, NO first aid training, NO insurance and NO adhering to safeguarding laws that cover other forms of paid childcare.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the only people who are able to look after children properly are strangers who are paid to do so? Many of whom, these days, are minimum wage (or less) mid-teenage girls, often with only have a basic grasp of spoken English. ChannelX
  • Score: 5

2:02pm Thu 27 Mar 14

swindonmum22 says...

My daughter attends this nursery, and she absolutely loves it. The staff are all very professional and have always been quick to report any bumps, or injuries to me. There is so much paperwork and pressure on observations etc that will enevitably mean that the care that is provided is compromised, it is sad that this has happened but I am not surpised with the pressure that nursery staff are under and how little pay they have for doing one of the most important jobs in the world - caring for our children.
I have absolutely no doubt at all that my little girl is well cared for and feels safe at the nursery at all times and would still 100% recommend this nursery to other parents.
My daughter attends this nursery, and she absolutely loves it. The staff are all very professional and have always been quick to report any bumps, or injuries to me. There is so much paperwork and pressure on observations etc that will enevitably mean that the care that is provided is compromised, it is sad that this has happened but I am not surpised with the pressure that nursery staff are under and how little pay they have for doing one of the most important jobs in the world - caring for our children. I have absolutely no doubt at all that my little girl is well cared for and feels safe at the nursery at all times and would still 100% recommend this nursery to other parents. swindonmum22
  • Score: 11

2:26pm Thu 27 Mar 14

swindondad says...

The amount of form filling and box ticking that is now required by OFSTED does take staff's time and attention away from the children. It is not too bad for the large scale providers as they can afford to dedicate staff hours to paperwork but those with only a few children are disproportionately effected.
The amount of form filling and box ticking that is now required by OFSTED does take staff's time and attention away from the children. It is not too bad for the large scale providers as they can afford to dedicate staff hours to paperwork but those with only a few children are disproportionately effected. swindondad
  • Score: 4

3:05pm Thu 27 Mar 14

pendingo says...

Doors, 2/3 year old children, if not watched are guaranteed to trap their fingers at some stage or another. How does a risk assessment prevent this from happening? If the staff at the nursery didn't have to spend time ticking boxes and could focus more on looking after their charges these sort of incidents would not happen. Health and safety is a matter of common sense not glorified paper chasing.
Doors, 2/3 year old children, if not watched are guaranteed to trap their fingers at some stage or another. How does a risk assessment prevent this from happening? If the staff at the nursery didn't have to spend time ticking boxes and could focus more on looking after their charges these sort of incidents would not happen. Health and safety is a matter of common sense not glorified paper chasing. pendingo
  • Score: 3

3:22pm Thu 27 Mar 14

spiller1928 says...

My initial response was in connection to house on the hills comment that they - “Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out, but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends, aren't”.

The fact is, in registered childcare, safeguarding is a top priority for OFSTED and there is a constant flow of stories about childcare settings being visited by OFSTED for a sudden inspection, often due to safeguarding concerns. that then finding themselves being downgraded and having special measures put in place. This was the case with the above story about a Sure Start Nursery in Swindon, at which I am sure most parents are more than happy with the care and education provided.

There must be a reason the government put in place all the long winded and often complicated rules and regulations covering registered childcare, so why do safeguarding, education and care needs, put in place to protect children being looked after for remuneration, in registered childcare, not cover, and therefore offer no protection, to children being looked after by friends or family for three hours a day, for remuneration, in unregulated childcare?
I’m sure there are plenty of children in professional childcare settings that only attend for 3 hours a day, but are still protected and educated under OFSTED regulations, unlike children that could quite legally be looked after in unregulated childcare.

Surely, if you’re being paid to undertake childcare in any setting, you should equally have to abide by the same rules and regulations, and more importanty, all of the children, across the board, should be offered the same protection.
My initial response was in connection to house on the hills comment that they - “Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out, but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends, aren't”. The fact is, in registered childcare, safeguarding is a top priority for OFSTED and there is a constant flow of stories about childcare settings being visited by OFSTED for a sudden inspection, often due to safeguarding concerns. that then finding themselves being downgraded and having special measures put in place. This was the case with the above story about a Sure Start Nursery in Swindon, at which I am sure most parents are more than happy with the care and education provided. There must be a reason the government put in place all the long winded and often complicated rules and regulations covering registered childcare, so why do safeguarding, education and care needs, put in place to protect children being looked after for remuneration, in registered childcare, not cover, and therefore offer no protection, to children being looked after by friends or family for three hours a day, for remuneration, in unregulated childcare? I’m sure there are plenty of children in professional childcare settings that only attend for 3 hours a day, but are still protected and educated under OFSTED regulations, unlike children that could quite legally be looked after in unregulated childcare. Surely, if you’re being paid to undertake childcare in any setting, you should equally have to abide by the same rules and regulations, and more importanty, all of the children, across the board, should be offered the same protection. spiller1928
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Dragons Wings says...

Pendigo, if the nursery staff had ensured the correct door stops were in place this accident would never have happened. If we entrust the safety of our children to them the very least they can do is ensure they follow the laid down safety guidelines.
Pendigo, if the nursery staff had ensured the correct door stops were in place this accident would never have happened. If we entrust the safety of our children to them the very least they can do is ensure they follow the laid down safety guidelines. Dragons Wings
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Thu 27 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

spiller1928 wrote:
My initial response was in connection to house on the hills comment that they - “Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out, but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends, aren't”.

The fact is, in registered childcare, safeguarding is a top priority for OFSTED and there is a constant flow of stories about childcare settings being visited by OFSTED for a sudden inspection, often due to safeguarding concerns. that then finding themselves being downgraded and having special measures put in place. This was the case with the above story about a Sure Start Nursery in Swindon, at which I am sure most parents are more than happy with the care and education provided.

There must be a reason the government put in place all the long winded and often complicated rules and regulations covering registered childcare, so why do safeguarding, education and care needs, put in place to protect children being looked after for remuneration, in registered childcare, not cover, and therefore offer no protection, to children being looked after by friends or family for three hours a day, for remuneration, in unregulated childcare?
I’m sure there are plenty of children in professional childcare settings that only attend for 3 hours a day, but are still protected and educated under OFSTED regulations, unlike children that could quite legally be looked after in unregulated childcare.

Surely, if you’re being paid to undertake childcare in any setting, you should equally have to abide by the same rules and regulations, and more importanty, all of the children, across the board, should be offered the same protection.
Absolutely, my comment was really that the professionals are vetted and checked up on but parents friends and relatives aren't. Some parents I have seen aren't fit to look after a dog let alone a child but nothing ever gets done. Sorry was just another of life's anomalies.
[quote][p][bold]spiller1928[/bold] wrote: My initial response was in connection to house on the hills comment that they - “Always found it a little strange that nurseries and child minders are checked out, but parents and those they get to look after their kids, family and friends, aren't”. The fact is, in registered childcare, safeguarding is a top priority for OFSTED and there is a constant flow of stories about childcare settings being visited by OFSTED for a sudden inspection, often due to safeguarding concerns. that then finding themselves being downgraded and having special measures put in place. This was the case with the above story about a Sure Start Nursery in Swindon, at which I am sure most parents are more than happy with the care and education provided. There must be a reason the government put in place all the long winded and often complicated rules and regulations covering registered childcare, so why do safeguarding, education and care needs, put in place to protect children being looked after for remuneration, in registered childcare, not cover, and therefore offer no protection, to children being looked after by friends or family for three hours a day, for remuneration, in unregulated childcare? I’m sure there are plenty of children in professional childcare settings that only attend for 3 hours a day, but are still protected and educated under OFSTED regulations, unlike children that could quite legally be looked after in unregulated childcare. Surely, if you’re being paid to undertake childcare in any setting, you should equally have to abide by the same rules and regulations, and more importanty, all of the children, across the board, should be offered the same protection.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, my comment was really that the professionals are vetted and checked up on but parents friends and relatives aren't. Some parents I have seen aren't fit to look after a dog let alone a child but nothing ever gets done. Sorry was just another of life's anomalies. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Fri 28 Mar 14

House with no name says...

I find it strange that this Country still encourages child birth by giving over generous allowances to women yet a recent report states we have insufficient housing to accommodate what we already have and that hundreds of thousands of houses will have to be built year on year for at least the next 10 years.

Not forgetting all the extra childbirth by immigrants that we also give generous allowances to, plus all the aid we give to other Countries with arms & nuclear capability when we could actually do with the money ourselves.

......... and why do people degradingly associate the inability of parents to look after children with the better treatment of children, dogs are generally far better behaved and have a better class of owner because they are bought out of love & wanting - unless you are referring to the ownership of certain dogs by the underclass who use them are weapons to protect their criminality.

Sorry going off topic - If it is a privately run childcare facility why is it a Swindon Council spokesman is making the excuses?
I find it strange that this Country still encourages child birth by giving over generous allowances to women yet a recent report states we have insufficient housing to accommodate what we already have and that hundreds of thousands of houses will have to be built year on year for at least the next 10 years. Not forgetting all the extra childbirth by immigrants that we also give generous allowances to, plus all the aid we give to other Countries with arms & nuclear capability when we could actually do with the money ourselves. ......... and why do people degradingly associate the inability of parents to look after children with the better treatment of children, dogs are generally far better behaved and have a better class of owner because they are bought out of love & wanting - unless you are referring to the ownership of certain dogs by the underclass who use them are weapons to protect their criminality. Sorry going off topic - If it is a privately run childcare facility why is it a Swindon Council spokesman is making the excuses? House with no name
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree