Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at John J Kane Regional Center-mc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, encephalopathy, mobility limitations, and a history of APS involvement was assessed multiple times as not being at risk for elopement, and the care plan did not include elopement goals or interventions. Despite a physician order stating the resident could not leave without supervision, the resident was approved for an overnight LOA with her daughter, after previously stating she wanted to go home and would not return. The resident left by private car and did not return at the scheduled time; staff made repeated but unsuccessful phone calls to the daughter and other contacts and took no other immediate actions, and facility leadership later confirmed they did not know the resident’s location or safety after departure, resulting in an immediate jeopardy finding for failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement.
Facility leadership, including the NHA and DON, failed to effectively manage operations and nursing services to ensure adequate resident supervision, resulting in an elopement when a resident did not return from a leave of absence. Review of job descriptions, facility documents, clinical records, and staff interviews showed that the NHA and DON did not carry out their defined responsibilities to operate in accordance with federal and state regulations, and the current NHA and DON acknowledged that administration failed to provide adequate supervision, creating an immediate jeopardy situation.
A resident with cognitive communication deficits and CHF experienced a documented change in condition involving altered mental status. Facility policy required physician notification and documentation of findings and notifications in the nurses' notes. Although an RN stated the physician was notified via text message from a personal phone, there was no documentation in the nurse progress notes of the physician notification, follow-up assessments, or treatment plans. The DON confirmed the absence of this documentation, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate clinical records.
A resident with COPD and Alzheimer's disease, requiring moderate assistance for transfers, sustained a deep laceration to the right lower leg during a stand-to-pivot transfer with a CNA. The injury occurred when the resident's leg caught on the wheelchair's leg rest hinge bracket, resulting in profuse bleeding and the need for staples, sutures, and repeated hospital visits. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance during the transfer, leading to actual harm.
A newly admitted resident with high blood pressure and alcohol abuse disorder eloped from the facility due to inadequate supervision. The resident left the unit independently and was mistaken for a visitor by security, who allowed him to exit. Staff failed to conduct proper safety checks, with a nurse aide relying on previous reports and pre-charting care activities without verification. The RN also did not complete safety checks or inform the doctor of the admission, contributing to the resident's unsupervised departure.
The facility failed to accurately complete MDS assessments for two residents and BIMS/PHQ-9 assessments for six residents. Discrepancies included incorrect documentation of hospice services and incomplete cognitive and mood assessments, as confirmed by staff interviews.
A facility failed to provide a resident with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form, which is crucial for informing beneficiaries about their rights regarding service termination. Despite the resident having intact cognition, neither the resident nor their emergency contact received or signed the NOMNC form. This was confirmed by the Director of Nursing, highlighting a failure to ensure residents' rights to make informed decisions.
A facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS assessment for a resident who was admitted to hospice care, despite the requirement to conduct a comprehensive assessment within 14 days of a significant change in condition. The oversight was confirmed by facility staff, highlighting a lapse in regulatory compliance.
The facility did not provide transfer notices to the LTC Ombudsman for eight months, as required by federal regulations. The facility's policy mandates sending a monthly list of facility-initiated transfers or discharges to the Ombudsman, but this was not done from December 2023 to August 2024. The DON confirmed the oversight during an interview.
A resident with morbid obesity and osteoarthritis, requiring substantial assistance for bed mobility, was injured due to neglect when a CNA failed to follow the care plan requiring three staff members for assistance. The CNA attempted to assist the resident alone, resulting in the resident falling and sustaining a leg fracture and a skin tear requiring sutures. The facility's investigation confirmed the neglect, as the CNA did not adhere to the prescribed care plan or verify the bed mobility order.
A resident with morbid obesity and osteoarthritis, requiring substantial assistance for bed mobility, suffered a leg fracture and skin tear after a CNA failed to follow the care plan requiring three staff members for assistance. The CNA allowed the resident to roll onto a bedpan without additional help, resulting in a fall and subsequent injuries.
A resident with dementia and post-surgical care needs was prescribed gabapentin 100 mg twice daily for anxiety, but due to a pharmacy error, received 800 mg twice daily for several days. The error was confirmed by the DON after the family refused the medication.
A resident with cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses was found with a sheet and gown tied in a manner that restricted movement. The responsible Nurse Aide had a prior warning for abuse and neglect and was subsequently terminated. The incident was reported to the physician, and the facility initiated staff education on physical restraints.
Failure to Supervise Resident on Leave of Absence Leading to Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent an elopement for one resident, resulting in an immediate jeopardy situation. The resident was admitted as an APS case due to being unable to care for herself at home and had multiple diagnoses including encephalopathy, dementia, dysphagia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, history of falling, and adult failure to thrive. Hospital documentation at admission described the resident being found at home in poor hygienic conditions, covered in urine, feces, and vomit, with EMS and ED staff expressing concern about the condition of the home and the need for APS involvement. Despite these concerns and the resident’s functional and cognitive vulnerabilities, the facility’s elopement evaluations completed on several dates in 2025 concluded that the resident was not at risk for elopement, and no further elopement assessments were documented after September 2025. The resident’s care plan, initiated in May 2025, did not include goals or interventions related to elopement, even though the discharge planning section identified that the resident was unable to care for herself, had limited assistance in the community, and might require protective care services. A physician’s order authorized the resident to move about the unit and facility without supervision but prohibited leaving the facility without supervision. Later, a physician’s order approved an overnight leave of absence (LOA) with medications. Progress notes documented that the resident expressed a desire to go home and stated that if she went home with her daughter, she would not return. A care conference note described that the resident wanted to discharge in the future, still required assistance and cueing with ADLs in therapy, had difficulty maneuvering her wheelchair, and could not clearly describe where she was going for the planned LOA or how she would get there, repeatedly stating that her daughter would pick her up even though the daughter did not drive. The resident left the facility on an approved overnight LOA with her daughter and a friend by private car, with the expectation that she would return by a specified time the following day. When the resident did not return at the scheduled time, staff documented multiple attempts to contact the daughter and other listed contacts by phone during the late evening and early morning hours, but no other actions were taken at that time. Progress notes show repeated unsuccessful calls to the daughter’s phone number, including the number the resident had written on the LOA form, which was not in service. Additional attempts to reach the daughter, pastor, and a church friend were also unsuccessful. The DON and ADON later confirmed that the facility did not take actions beyond phone calls when the resident failed to return as scheduled and that they were unaware of the resident’s location or safety from the time she left on LOA. The Chief Nursing Officer acknowledged that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement, resulting in an immediate jeopardy situation for this resident.
Failure of Administration and Nursing Leadership to Prevent Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the failure of the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) to effectively manage the facility and ensure adequate supervision of residents, resulting in an elopement incident for one of forty residents (R1). The facility-provided job description for the NHA states that the NHA is responsible for directing the day-to-day functions of the facility, managing all aspects of operations, and ensuring resident safety and comfort in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The DON job description states that the DON is responsible for planning, organizing, developing, and directing the overall operation of the nursing department in accordance with Professional Nursing Law and applicable regulations. Despite these defined responsibilities, the facility did not take appropriate action when a resident failed to return from a leave of absence. Based on review of job descriptions, facility documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, surveyors determined that the previously employed NHA and DON did not fulfill their essential job duties to ensure that federal and state guidelines and regulations were followed. Specifically, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement, which created an immediate jeopardy situation for one resident. During an interview, the current NHA and current DON confirmed that facility administration had failed to effectively manage the facility to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement. The cited regulatory references include 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) (Responsibility of licensee), 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3)(e)(1) (Management), and 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(2)(3)(5) (Nursing services).
Failure to Document Physician Notification and Follow-Up After Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medical records were complete and accurately documented for a resident who experienced a change in condition. Facility policy titled "Notification of Changes in Resident Condition and Treatment Changes" required nursing staff to notify the physician of changes, accidents, and injuries, obtain treatment and diagnostic orders, and document findings and notifications in the nurses' notes. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficits and congestive heart failure, and a subsequent MDS confirmed these diagnoses remained current. A change in condition report documented that the resident was observed with altered mental status on a specified date. Despite the documented change in condition, the resident’s nurse progress notes did not contain any documentation of physician notification, follow-up assessments, or treatment plans related to this event. An RN reported that the physician had been notified of the change in condition via text message from the RN’s personal phone but acknowledged that this communication was not documented in the medical record. The DON confirmed that the medical record lacked documentation of the physician notification and related follow-up, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate clinical records for this resident in violation of 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f)(g)(h).
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision During Transfer Results in Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent an injury to a resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Alzheimer's disease, who required partial to moderate assistance for transfers and had a physician order for one-person assist with a rolling walker. During a stand-to-pivot transfer from bed to wheelchair, the resident became weak, buckled at the knees, and was assisted by a nurse aide into the wheelchair. After the transfer, it was discovered that the resident had sustained a deep laceration to the right lower leg, which was bleeding profusely. The laceration was caused by the resident's leg coming into contact with the wheelchair's leg rest hinge bracket during the transfer. Immediate first aid was provided, and the resident was sent to the emergency department, where the wound required multiple staples, sutures, and application of hemostatic dressings due to continued bleeding. The injury resulted in repeated hospital visits within a short period due to ongoing bleeding from the wound site. Documentation and staff interviews confirmed that the transfer was performed with a single staff member as per the care plan at the time, but the incident revealed that this level of assistance was insufficient to prevent injury for this resident. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and appropriate transfer assistance directly led to the resident sustaining actual harm in the form of a significant laceration requiring medical intervention.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of a newly admitted resident, identified as Resident R1. The resident, who had diagnoses of high blood pressure and alcohol abuse disorder, was admitted to the facility in the evening. Despite being a new admission, the resident was able to leave the facility without being noticed by the staff. The resident was last seen on CCTV leaving the unit independently and fully dressed, and was mistaken for a visitor by the security guard, who allowed him to exit the building. The deficiency was further compounded by the failure of the staff to conduct proper safety and accountability checks. A nurse aide, Employee E1, admitted to not physically checking on the resident and instead relied on the report given by the previous shift. The nurse aide also pre-charted care activities without verifying the resident's presence. Similarly, RN Employee E2 did not complete the required safety checks and failed to inform the doctor of the new admission. These lapses in protocol allowed the resident to leave the facility unnoticed. The security personnel, Employee E3, also contributed to the deficiency by not recognizing the resident as a newly admitted individual and assuming he was a visitor. This assumption led to the security guard unlocking the door for the resident, facilitating his elopement. The facility's policies on elopement prevention and safety checks were not adequately followed, resulting in the resident's unsupervised departure from the facility.
Inaccurate MDS and BIMS/PHQ-9 Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately for two residents and that Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and/or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) assessments were completed accurately for six residents. Specifically, Resident R41's MDS inaccurately indicated that they did not receive hospice services, despite being on the facility's list of residents receiving such services. Additionally, discrepancies were found in the cognitive and mood assessments for several residents, where the BIMS and Resident Mood Interviews were not completed despite indications that they should have been. The report highlights specific instances where the facility did not adhere to the guidelines outlined in the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual. For example, Resident R13 was noted to be sometimes understood, yet the BIMS and Resident Mood Interview were not completed. Similar issues were identified for Residents R35, R41, R53, R169, R174, and R190, where the assessments were either incomplete or inaccurately documented. These deficiencies were confirmed through interviews with the Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator and the Social Services Director.
Failure to Provide Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were properly informed about their Medicare coverage and potential liabilities for services not covered. Specifically, the facility did not provide Resident R203 with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form, which is essential for informing beneficiaries of their right to request a review of service termination. Despite Resident R203 having intact cognition, as indicated by a BIMS score of 15, neither the resident nor their designated emergency contact received or signed the NOMNC form. The deficiency was confirmed during an interview with the Director of Nursing Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator (RNAC), who acknowledged that the NOMNC was not explained to Resident R203 or their representative in a comprehensible manner. This oversight was identified as a failure to uphold resident rights to make informed decisions about their health, safety, and welfare, as required by the relevant Pennsylvania codes.
Failure to Complete Significant Change MDS Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident, identified as R40, who experienced a significant change in condition. According to the Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, a comprehensive assessment must be conducted within 14 days after determining a significant change in a resident's physical or mental condition. Resident R40, who was admitted to the facility, had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and neuropathy. A physician order dated 10/7/24 indicated that the resident was admitted to hospice care, which is a significant change in condition requiring an updated MDS assessment. Upon review of Resident R40's MDS assessments, it was found that a significant change MDS was not completed to include the hospice services. This oversight was confirmed during interviews with the Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator and the Nursing Home Administrator. The failure to complete the required MDS assessment for Resident R40 was acknowledged by the facility staff, indicating a lapse in adhering to the regulatory requirements for resident assessments.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide transfer notices to the representatives of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for eight out of ten months, specifically from December 2023 through August 2024. According to the facility's policy dated January 6, 2024, a monthly list of residents who were facility-initiated transfers or discharges should be sent to the Ombudsman. However, this procedure was not followed. The federal regulation Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations S483.15(c)(3) requires that before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must notify the resident and their representative(s) in writing and send a copy of the notice to the Ombudsman. The Director of Nursing confirmed during an interview on November 7, 2024, that the facility had not provided these notices since December 31, 2023.
Neglect Leads to Resident Injury Due to Non-Compliance with Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from neglect, resulting in actual harm, including a leg fracture and a skin tear requiring sutures. The resident, who had diagnoses of morbid obesity and osteoarthritis, required substantial assistance for bed mobility. A physician's order specified that three staff members were needed to assist with the resident's bed mobility. However, during an incident, a CNA attempted to assist the resident alone, contrary to the care plan and physician's orders. The incident occurred when the CNA was providing care and attempted to place the resident on a bedpan. The resident, weighing 338 pounds, attempted to assist by grabbing the headboard, which led to her falling off the bed. The CNA was unable to prevent the fall, resulting in the resident sustaining a laceration to the left knee and a comminuted fracture of the distal femur. Emergency services were called, and the resident was transferred to a hospital for further evaluation and treatment. The facility's investigation revealed that the CNA did not follow the prescribed care plan or verify the bed mobility order before providing care. This failure to adhere to the care plan and physician's orders was identified as neglect, leading to the resident's injuries. The Director of Nursing confirmed the facility's failure to protect the resident from neglect, which resulted in significant harm.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision Leads to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent falls, resulting in actual harm to a resident who suffered a leg fracture and a skin tear requiring sutures. The incident involved a resident with a history of morbid obesity and osteoarthritis, who required substantial assistance for bed mobility. A physician's order specified that the resident needed assistance from three staff members for bed mobility, which was also reflected in the resident's care plan. On the day of the incident, a CNA attempted to assist the resident onto a bedpan without the required assistance from two additional staff members. The CNA allowed the resident to grab the headboard to assist with rolling, which led to the resident losing balance and falling off the bed. The fall resulted in a laceration to the left knee and a comminuted fracture of the distal femur, necessitating emergency medical attention and transfer to a higher-level hospital for further evaluation. The facility's investigation revealed that the CNA did not follow the prescribed plan of care or physician orders, which required three staff members for bed mobility. The CNA's failure to verify the bed mobility order before providing care was identified as neglect, and the incident was confirmed by the Director of Nursing. The facility documented the incident as a substantiated case of neglect due to the CNA's actions.
Medication Error Due to Pharmacy Mismanagement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement pharmaceutical services accurately, resulting in a medication error for one resident. The facility's policy required the contracted pharmacy to dispense prescriptions accurately based on authorized prescriber orders. However, a review of the resident's medication administration record revealed that the resident was prescribed gabapentin 100 mg twice daily, but was instead administered 800 mg twice daily from August 9 to August 14. This error was confirmed by the Director of Nursing during an interview. The resident involved had a history of dementia and was receiving aftercare following surgery. A psychiatric evaluation had led to a new order for gabapentin to manage anxiety, but the incorrect dosage was provided due to a pharmacy error. The error was identified when the family refused the medication on two occasions, prompting a review and confirmation of the mistake by the facility's Director of Nursing.
Failure to Ensure Resident was Free from Physical Restraints
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from physical restraints. Resident R1, who was admitted on 10/6/23 and had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, muscle wasting, diabetes, and adult failure to thrive, was found on 3/13/24 with a sheet tied behind their lower back and the corners of their gown tied behind their thighs. The resident had a BIMS score of 5, indicating cognitive impairment. Nurse Aide Employee E1 was identified as the individual who tied the sheet and gown, and had a previous verbal warning for abuse and neglect on 4/4/23. Employee E1 was suspended on 3/13/24 and terminated on 3/20/24. The incident was reported to the physician on 3/16/24. The facility's policy on physical restraints, last reviewed on 2/07/23, defines a restraint as anything that restricts freedom of movement and limits one's sense of control and independence. The incident was discovered by the oncoming 7 a.m. shift Nurse Aide Employee E2, who reported the restraint. The facility initiated education on physical restraints on 3/18/24, which included defining restraints, identifying physical risks and psychosocial impacts, determining if position change alarms are restraints, and identifying key elements of non-compliance. Seven direct care staff confirmed receiving this education during interviews on 3/26/24.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,297 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 22 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Mckeesport
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverside Health & Rehab Center | 0.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 31 | 0 |
| Eldercrest Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
| Rehabilitation Center At Jefferson Hills, The | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| Southwestern Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 3.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Lgar Health And Rehabilitation | 5.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for John J Kane Regional Center-mc.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.