Overall sentiment is highly polarized: reviews contain both strong praise for many direct-care staff and therapy services and serious, repeated allegations of unsafe care, neglect, and systemic failures. A consistent pattern emerges in which families and patients describe compassionate, hardworking nurses, CNAs, and especially PT/OT teams who helped rehabilitation and recovery, alongside a significant number of reports describing dangerous lapses in clinical care, communication breakdowns, and management failures. This split creates an unpredictable quality profile where individual outcomes appear to vary widely depending on staffing, shifts, and case complexity.
Care quality and patient safety are the dominant concerns in the negative reports. Multiple reviewers allege very serious incidents: medication errors (including alleged removal of IV medication without physician consultation), unsafe discharges of disoriented or high‑fall‑risk patients without family or POA notification or appropriate follow‑up, delayed medical responses during crises, and near‑fatal therapy incidents. Families reported severe clinical consequences in some cases — severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalances, extremely high blood sugar, sepsis or pneumonia, hospital readmissions, and at least one reported death attributed by the family to neglect. There are also repeated reports of missing fall‑prevention measures (no bed alarms when required), inappropriate feeding practices and dignity violations (feeding a patient while unclothed, mismatched food textures), and alleged poor infection‑control practices (lack of gloves/masks, poor hand hygiene). Several reviewers explicitly warn about not sending surgical patients or high‑acuity patients to the facility.
Staffing, communication, and management show a troubling pattern. Understaffing and slow or unanswered service requests recur across reviews. Many families describe phones that are down or staff who are unresponsive to calls, creating delays in coordination and emergency notifications. Administrative responsiveness is frequently criticized — reviewers report unresponsiveness, dismissive or disrespectful attitudes when concerns are raised, and a lack of follow‑through on complaints. Some reviews reference state inspections, complaints, and even past criminal issues with staff, which heightens concerns about institutional oversight and safety culture. At the same time, several reviews state that administrators and some staff are genuinely caring and professional, indicating inconsistency in leadership and enforcement of care standards.
Facilities and nonclinical services are mixed but include some positives. Multiple reviewers praise the facility’s cleanliness and describe a home‑like environment. Wi‑Fi works, and volunteers and an activity director are credited with creating an engaging environment; religious services (Bible study, Catholic/interdenominational services, weekly rosary) are available and appreciated by residents and families. However, reviewers also raise serious physical‑safety concerns: an outdated fire system, lack of evacuation drills, no safety anchors or harnesses, and maintenance personnel reported as lacking necessary electrical training. These infrastructure issues, paired with clinical safety lapses, amplify family worries about readiness to handle emergencies.
Dining receives consistent, specific critique: food is described as high in sodium, not consistently heart‑healthy or plant‑based, with insufficient fresh fruit options. Protein is reported as sometimes overcooked or of poor quality; pureed food practices have been questioned for appropriateness. While these are less immediately life‑threatening than the clinical allegations, poor nutrition can adversely affect recovery and chronic disease management, and multiple families mentioned this as part of an overall pattern of inconsistent care.
A notable pattern is the coexistence of strong, individualized positive experiences and repeated, severe negative incidents. Many reviewers emphatically recommend the facility based on excellent PT/OT outcomes, caring nurses, and a supportive culture; others strongly advise avoiding Centennial Post Acute, particularly for post‑surgical or high‑needs patients, citing neglect, unsafe practices, and potential legal action. This variability suggests that quality may depend heavily on staffing levels, particular shifts, case mix, and how effectively management enforces protocols.
Recommendations for families considering Centennial Post Acute based on these reviews: (1) If possible, obtain current state inspection reports and any complaint histories before placement. (2) For high‑acuity or post‑surgical patients, exercise caution and consider alternatives; several reviewers specifically advise against sending surgical patients. (3) Insist on clear, written plans for medication management, fall prevention (including bed alarms if needed), and discharge planning with explicit family/POA notification procedures. (4) Monitor nursing and therapy schedules closely and document any missed doses or missed therapy sessions. (5) Ask about emergency response protocols, infection‑control policies, staff training, and fire/safety readiness.
In summary, Centennial Post Acute shows strengths in therapeutic services, direct‑care compassion from many staff members, and active programming, but the facility is reported by multiple families to have systemic problems with staffing, clinical oversight, communication, and safety infrastructure. These issues have, according to reviews, led in some cases to severe harm. The review corpus recommends careful vetting, strong family advocacy, and caution for vulnerable or high‑acuity patients.
