Difficult situation

I don't see anything wrong with this from your end.
You have carried out your responsibilities as a professional nanny.

Depends on the agency. Most of my local agencies would def support the nanny depending on what the problem was

Saying that obv if the nanny did something terrible like not using car seats etc they would side with the family

Obv as nannies we want to respect and follow our employers rules but to what extent if not good for the child. Ie if child was having s&d and parent said nothing to eat or drink - fine - but as a nanny we can't not give a child anything all day as will dehydrate - the op used her own judgement and common sense and training as a nurse

So basically it comes down to whether the mb trusts the nanny and her judgement in situations when they are not there and seems ops mb doesn't :(

Thanks for that Nom. I didnt realise that different nanny agencies operated differently to each other. I think it is one of the ones like you mentioned.

But yes, Karoleann, this doesnt have much to do with the op directly.

I think I was sort of saying in a roundabout way, that if the nanny went with an agency at some point, and the op really hadnt done much wrong, that the agency would realise this, and try and help her get a new placement, as her work employment record would still be good. And they could vouch for her.

Though I now see that the agenices dont all work in the same way.

What does an agency have to do with anything?
Your employer told you not to give your child anything solid. You gave her something solid against her orders and she was cross and came home.
She sounds very over protective and angsty, but that's how she wants to run things and she is your employer.
She'll probably relax over time - but you have to respect her wishes or leave.

Well generally the most basic relationship is nanny-employer. They have a contract between the two of them and that's that. Nanny also has a realationship with their insurer and possibly OFSTED.

An introduction agency brings nanny and parent together. They may advise on OFSTED registration and the like and mediate if things go wrong but they can equally wash their hands of the entire situation, having been a very expensive screening service.

An employment agency is an intermediary for the parent and nanny. So parent pays agency for x hours, agency finds, sends and pays nanny. Nanny is still registered separately with OFSTED but may either get their insurance separately (this is definitely the case with 2 employment agencies) or via the agency's umbrella policy (and there's definitely one that does this). In the latter case I'd expect the contract you have with the agency, and the one agency has with the nanny, covers medication and permission. As to the former, I don't know how that would work.

In all cases where the agency is the employer and the parent is the client, the agency would be able to redeploy the nanny without a need for references. They would, as the employer, be the one giving out a new reference. One such agency would also be able to shift the nanny out of nannying into another setting operated under the same umbrella. One hopes they'd deal with any complaint responsibly.

The relationship on whose say goes is more complex. I suspect in that case it would operate more of a nursery style scenario where nanny is assigned a line manager and if they have concerns they would talk it over with them, so a reasonable instruction would be followed but something like giving calpol when not indicated the nanny would ask the agency and follow their instructions, and you as the agency's client would take up their employee's conduct with them. If that makes sense. Just as a nursery nurse would defer to a room leader who might consult the manager if in doubt, and if you had a problem you'd take it up with the room leader or the manager.

If you're not clear on who is working for who, and I'm guessing you're the parent in this scenario, it might be worth asking for some more detail about the setup and checking the terms you have with the agency.

These kind of agencies provide a very interesting perspective on childminder agencies and how they might develop, and to what extend the relationship between CM and parents could be affected by a third party. It may be that more nanny agencies shift from an introduction role to an employment service, but I think there will always be room for parents to employ a nanny privately and it's likely to remain the more popular option for the foreseeable future.

Nom, perhaps I do have a specific agency in mind. Perhaps it works differently to others? No worries. There isnt a problem yet, hope there wont be. If there is, I will get to see who is working for who, and how it all knits together.
Glad you have another job to go to op. A big plus.

I'm relieved I'm not ofsted reg lol

And have in contract regarding permission for medicine and suncream

Oh agencies.... now there is another frustration I can do without... I've never used one but heard and read plenty of stories to put me off for life.

trish I'm wondering whether you have a specific agency in mind which follows the business model where the nanny is employed? They do exist but are rare. If you want to PM with a more specific query I'll do my best to help.

No, most agencies don't employ the nanny. So they have absolutely nothing to do with the day to day job a nanny dies. If it all falls apart then employer or nanny could contact the agency as an independent third party but in general they are a recruitment mechanism, not the employer. There are very few exceptions to that.

An agency may vouch for a nanny, but that only really works if the next parent is already going through them... They can't give a reference on how the nanny is at their job, just confirm the nanny's story.

It is therefore up to the employer or nanny to agree what happens about illness and GP. A&E will usually trat regardless but a GP might not accept a nanny accompanying a child, particularly for things like vaccinations, unless they have proof he nanny is allowed to be there.

Most insurers accept that a nanny is there to take decisions like putting on sunscreen, giving calpol and teething remedies etc so a blanket consent form will suffice. That way a parent can say 'give calpol today' or a nanny can ring up and say 'Little johnny has a temp so I've given calpol', or if the nanny can't reach the parent they can give calpol and then say that evening 'little johnny had a temp so I gave calpol at 10am and 5pm'.

OFSTED watch, yes, but they have the right to bar a nanny from the register if they discover bad practice, so if a nanny cannot register with OFSTED that should be ringing alarm bells.

That nanny insurance statement is a problem isnt it? What happens if a nanny cannot contact an employer? And often in these sort of situations, they would need to be contacted in a hurry. Would a nanny be able to take a child to a Gp? Or a&e? Presumably yes?

But nannies have written contracts with agencies dont they? Dont know if employers do?
Agree that agencies dont always know the answer but it is their job to find out. Not sure how much use they are when things go wrong. They mediate presumably. And If they decided that an employer is in the wrong and not the nanny, presumably they might employ the nanny elsewhere? Amd if they didnt end up agreeing with the employer, the agency itself could and would provide a good reference?

So. Ofsted arent really in a picture as regeards a nanny, as they only sort of watch?

But insurance is a different matter. A nanny needs to know what is required and necessary, insurance wise.

Have I got that right?

Agencies IME don't necessarily know better than a well informed nanny, and tbh why would they?

The way it works is registration is an individual matter between OFSTED and a nanny. There were some rules and guidelines set out about what you needed to do in order to register and what you have to do in order to stay registered - qualifications, professional behaviour, being inspected etc. This is, of necessity, stuff that a nanny can take personal responsibility for. OFSTED say you need to provide a safe environment but they can't require you to change anything in it, all they can require you to do is manage that risk appropriately. One of the requirements of registration is to hold insurance.

Insurance is a different relationship between an insurance provider (broker plus underwriter) and the nanny. In order to minimise the risk of exposure an insurer may have different requirements to OFSTED. In order, then, to be square with their insurance which is required to maintain their OFSTED registration the nanny must do certain additional things.

An agency might be able to explain this, but equally so can any of the 3 professional organisations nannies can join, some local authorities, some payroll companies, various blogs - it just depends how informed the person answering the question is.

Agencies might say that as part of their remit they help nannies with the process but really they act as screening for the nannies and parents, and should mediate if it all falls apart. So in a sense they should be able to explain to a parents that written consent is probably necessary because it's normal for insurers to require it and insurance is a good thing to have but they don't simplify the relationship between OFSTED and the nanny in any way.

Well, if I employy someone to do a job (e.g. nanny) I have to take on all the legal responsibilities of salary, tax, holiday, employment rights, etc. In return, I expect them to answer to me. I'm not interested in a three way contract with ofsted, or even the insurance company. I'm happy to work with the nanny to cover all foreseeable eventualities by documenting a variety of things and putting my signature on it. But, I'm not interested in whether Ofsted thinks I need a stairgate or whether they approved of my parental decisions.

I think OFSTED has a place in business and schools which serve the public. But, a nanny is my employee, and I expect to make the rules (within reason).

I think there is a huge difference between being a childminder's client and a nanny's employer.

I generally find Ofsted policies to be well intended but horribly misguided. So, I wouldn't welcome them in my home.

I am confused as heck now.

I have a vested interest in this matter but not saying how.

Is it all confusing and that is why some nannies prefer to have been recommended by an agency. So then an agency can sort it all out?

Whereas if you are non agency, it all gets very confusing as regards ofsted and insurance?

You may not get very far in court without insurance covering your legal fees though, life....

I don't know whether all insurers require written permission for administration of medication. I can fully understand why they might, I suspect all require permission of some kind although they may accept it being given retroactively.

I know previously OFSTED were overstepping their bounds so it doesn't surprise me that you were about confused what OFSTED do (can) require. Most people are. I can be sometimes and it's part of my job not to be! Plus they're utterly crap at telling people they have updated their guidance, including their own inspectors.

Actually I was supporting you that the nanny/employer relationship is outside their sphere of influence . I was pointing out that not following instructions about medication idue to OFSTED was a misunderstanding on the nanny's part and giving her the correct info, although down thread I said some inspectors misinterpret that because they forget the exemption for the voluntary part of the childcare register. I know you have a lot of beef with OFSTED and I remember why, but if the only reason you opposed registration for nannies is because you think it would stop your employee following your instructions then you'd be wrong.

OFSTED are being relatively careful about the nanny/employer relationship because they have no legal mandate for nannies. It's voluntary. They're absolute bastards to nurseries and CMs because the law says they can be, but if you employed a nanny then even if nanny were registered you can refuse to have them in your home for inspections and you can ask your nanny to do pretty much whatever you like and OFSTED can't say a thing. If an inspector tries to meddle with a nanny administering medication then you can legitimately get them in a whole world of trouble.

Insurance is a completely separate issue and I do think you're being a bit unreasonable if you wouldn't respect those requirements because it is ultimately there to ensure the future of your DC if something happens while nanny is on duty. Given that you cover medication in the contract that would probably suffice, though, so it's almost a non-issue - it just means any nanny would have to be aware of the terms of their cover and make sure you were okay with it, which would be good practice anyway.

But re: OFSTED and the nanny/employer relationship you're actually right, and not just morally but legally.

on the Calpol point, if I was told by my nanny that she didn't give a sick child medicine because Ofsted (computer) says no, I'd be of the opinion she couldn't think for herself. I'd be very annoyed.
However it seems that this employer doesn't want a nanny to think for herself and has created an environment which doesn't encourage initiative & in fact positively stifles it. She sounds like a good old fashioned control freak, who is not making her life any easier whatsoever by having a nanny.

NDC,

I'm not the one who raised the point that ofsted would object to medicine being given. So I am not clear why you have addressed me.

My point is that the employer employee relationship is between the nanny and the parent(s), and nothing to do with Ofsted. So as the employer, I'm obliged to cater to them.

Also, it is worth pointing out that Ofsted absolutely is in the habit of getting involved in issues which actually are not within their remit. So, they may well choose to meddle on the medicine administration.

Ofsted, as you can ready from previous threads, was horrid to my lovely childminder. Truly horrid. I don't like them. They have cause me far more anguish than help when it comes to childcare. And I accept that the severity of views I have put forward here are probably influenced by that experience.

As it happens, I no longer employ a nanny. But, if I did, I wouldn't let Ofsted in my home for any inspections of any kind.

Actually strix OFSTED specifically don't include home childcarers precisely because (presumably) they know it's outside their remit to meddle with a parent who wants their child given medication.

"The Childcare Register
Providers on the Childcare Register, apart from home childcarers, must keep a written record of any medicine given to a child for whom childcare is provided. This includes:
the details of the product and the date you gave it;
the name of the person who gave the medicine and the circumstances; and
a record of the parents’ permission — or a carer, if the parent has identified another person.
There is no guidance relating to whether the medication is prescribed or not as long as you keep a written record."

From [[http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/factsheet-childcare-giving-medication-children-registered-childcare Giving medication to children in registered childcare
January 2013 No 080290]]

So those on the Early Years register can only give prescribed medication or over the counter with written permission, those on the Childcare register don't have any rules about prescriptions but do need permission, not specifically written, and Home Childcarers (aka nannies) don't have any rules.

The insurance issue is entirely separate and I do see why they do it, but that isn't OFSTED.