JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The John J Kane Regional Center in McKeesport, Pennsylvania has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #188 out of 653 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 52 in Allegheny County, indicating that only seven local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 9 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point here, with a 5/5 rating and a turnover rate of 41%, which is below the state average, meaning staff are likely to be familiar with residents. However, there are concerning incidents, including a critical failure to supervise a resident, resulting in an unauthorized exit from the facility, and serious neglect that led to a resident suffering a leg fracture and requiring sutures. While the nursing home has its strengths, these weaknesses warrant careful consideration.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Pennsylvania
- #188/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 41% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $7,446 in fines. Higher than 55% of Pennsylvania facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 56 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (41%)
7 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents, and staff interviews, it was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility admission documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a significant change...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined th...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of facility policy, federal regulation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transfer notices to representatives of the Office of the Long-Term C...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and documents, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and documents, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to impleme...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain a resident was free from a physical restraint f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, resident clinical record, investigation documentations and staff interview, it was determine...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies, water testing logs and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to impl...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, observations, resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility policy, observations, staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed of properly in the Food Service Department's refuse a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to imp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of literature from Poison Control, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility documentation and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to assist the residents to meet or organize for three of 11 Months (May 2022, August 2022, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 41% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is John J Kane Regional Center-Mc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is John J Kane Regional Center-Mc Staffed?
CMS rates JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at John J Kane Regional Center-Mc?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 11 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates John J Kane Regional Center-Mc?
JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 360 certified beds and approximately 207 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a large facility located in MCKEESPORT, Pennsylvania.
How Does John J Kane Regional Center-Mc Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting John J Kane Regional Center-Mc?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is John J Kane Regional Center-Mc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at John J Kane Regional Center-Mc Stick Around?
JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was John J Kane Regional Center-Mc Ever Fined?
JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC has been fined $7,446 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,153. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is John J Kane Regional Center-Mc on Any Federal Watch List?
JOHN J KANE REGIONAL CENTER-MC is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.