Overall sentiment: The reviews show a highly mixed but predominantly negative picture of Arlington Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center. Many reviewers report severe lapses in clinical care, hygiene, responsiveness, and management, while a smaller but consistent subset of reviews praise specific staff members, the therapy department, admissions team, and certain physical attributes like private rooms and location. The pattern across reviews is one of significant inconsistency: some families encountered attentive, competent caregivers and good communication, while many others describe neglectful, dangerous, or even lethal outcomes.
Care quality and safety: The most prominent themes are reports of neglect and delayed or inadequate medical care. Multiple reviews describe delayed responses to emergencies (chest pain, respiratory distress), slow or failed hospital transfers, and a lack of urgency from nursing staff. There are repeated accounts of infections and pneumonia that required ambulance transport to a hospital, and at least one review links care at the facility with a resident’s deterioration and death. Other clinical failures include untreated or late-treated UTIs, failure to monitor blood sugar, inadequate pain management, medication delays, bedsores and pressure injuries, and missed or refused rehabilitation appointments. Reported safety incidents include falls leading to injury and residents left unattended for long periods.
Staff behavior and variability: Reviews describe highly variable staff performance. Several reviews single out compassionate, helpful staff (including specific praise for Nurse Miller, the therapy team, and the Rehab Director) and note professional and dependable admissions personnel. Conversely, a large number of reviews accuse nurses and aides of rudeness, playing on phones, poor bedside manner, ignoring residents, refusing needed care (e.g., changing diapers), and being blatantly negligent. Short-staffing is a recurring explanation for delayed care and missed tasks. There are also allegations of retaliation or eviction proceedings after families complained, and descriptions of management being unresponsive or hostile when issues are raised.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Opinions on the physical plant are mixed. Several reviewers note that parts of the facility appear new, well-kept, and smelled clean on tour, with private and spacious rooms and strict security in dementia/locked units. However, multiple reviews contrast that surface appearance with unsanitary conditions in resident rooms and care areas: filthy tracheostomy cannulas, black mopping water, bad odors, fecal messes, and infrequent room cleaning or bathing (reports of bathing only every two days). Temperature control and air adjustments in rooms were also criticized. Laundry issues and missing or stolen personal items are recurring complaints.
Dining, therapy, and activities: Dining received mixed feedback but leans negative overall; several reviewers called the food terrible, though a few described the food as good. The therapy and rehabilitation department are among the most consistently praised parts of the facility—active, engaging staff and a highly regarded Rehab Director were named as strengths. Nonetheless, some families reported refusal or inadequacy of physical therapy in individual cases.
Management, communication, and administration: A frequent concern is poor communication—both between staff and families and between facility clinicians and the residents’ doctors. Several reviews describe a doctor or medical team who seemed unaware of patients’ conditions, and delays that resulted from communication breakdowns. Management is often described as unprofessional or unresponsive, with reports of mishandled complaints and calls for corporate intervention, investigations, or facility closure. Admissions staff were explicitly praised in multiple reviews, indicating at least some administrative competence in intake and initial interactions.
Patterns and overall recommendation: The dominant pattern is inconsistency in staffing and care quality, with substantial evidence from multiple reviews of neglect, hygiene breaches, medical mismanagement, and poor responsiveness. Positive reports—clean newer areas, private rooms, proximity to the hospital, strong admissions and therapy teams, and a number of caring employees—indicate that quality of care may depend heavily on which staff members and shifts are present. For prospective families, the reviews suggest exercising caution: verify current staffing levels, ask specific questions about infection control, nursing ratios, how emergencies and hospital transfers are handled, and whether there have been recent complaints or corrective actions. Families who decide to consider the facility should closely monitor care, document concerns immediately, and insist on clear communication with clinicians and administration. The volume and severity of negative reports warrant independent oversight and prompt attention from corporate or regulatory bodies to address the recurring and serious issues described by multiple reviewers.
