Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with a large proportion of reviewers praising front-line caregiving and activities, while a smaller but very significant subset reports severe problems involving administration, medical care lapses, and personal/property mishandling. Many reviews describe exceptional one-to-one care: CNAs and nurses receive frequent praise for compassion, responsiveness, and hands-on support. Specific caregivers are named positively in multiple accounts (for example, Melody, Shasta, Chris, Andy, Taurus, and activity staff including Tammy/Louis/Lewis Falcon), and families repeatedly credit staff with improving residents' well-being, providing companionship, and keeping relatives happy and engaged. Rehab and therapy services are often highlighted as professional and effective, and several reviewers described tangible health improvements and peace of mind after admission.
Activities and social programming are among the facility's strongest features in positive reviews. Multiple reviewers describe a robust activity calendar (arts and crafts, games, library, theatre, and special-occasion support), flexible scheduling for visits, and staff who facilitate virtual communication like FaceTime. The courtyard-centered layout, abundant natural light, on-site dining (Rainbow Room), and pleasant campus aesthetics (live flowers, maintained grounds) are cited as contributing to a comfortable environment that families appreciate. Several reviewers note that the facility is clean, well-maintained, and laid out for easy navigation, with on-site therapy and physician services adding to convenience and continuity of care. Memory care and short-term rehabilitation options are available and positively referenced.
Despite those positives, a number of reviews raise serious concerns that cannot be overlooked. Multiple accounts allege neglectful or unsafe medical care, including reports of missed tests, untreated urinary tract infections, delirium, and other acute events that reportedly led to hospitalization and, in one case, a death. Some reviewers describe being ignored by nurses, slow responses to emergencies, and situations where pain or urgent medical needs were not adequately addressed. These reports are paired with accusations of administrative misconduct in a minority of reviews — ranging from financial exploitation and wrongful eviction to disposal or misplacement of personal effects (hearing aids, jewelry, identification). A review citing 20 survey violations and allegations of an intoxicated administrator illustrates that concerns extend beyond bedside care to leadership and regulatory compliance for some families.
A recurring theme is inconsistency: many families describe the facility as ‘‘first class’’ with super staff and strong leadership, while others urge people to stay away, calling it short-staffed, money-focused, and unsafe. This variability is reflected across domains: some reviewers find dining service acceptable and security helpful, while others report poor food, rude security, and unwelcoming management. Short staffing and high turnover are frequently mentioned as contributing factors to poorer experiences — delayed assistance, fewer nurses on the floor, and overworked staff. Reviews also note building-age issues (older plumbing creating bathroom odors, rooms needing paint, bare rooms, and some shared community bathrooms), which contrast with praise for well-maintained common areas.
Staffing and management impressions are polarized. Many reviewers praise accessible administrators, helpful HR, and staff who prioritize residents, while others report unprofessional upper management, lack of responsiveness from the Director of Nursing and Social Director, and even criminal allegations. Several reviews single out specific staff for exemplary attention (including activity directors who go above and beyond), underscoring that the positive experiences are often tied to individual caregivers. Conversely, named negative personnel are mentioned in some complaints, suggesting personnel inconsistencies across shifts or departments.
In summary, Christian Care Health Center generates strong positive feedback for direct caregiving, activities programming, rehabilitation services, and campus atmosphere from numerous families. However, the presence of multiple severe negative reports — including alleged medical neglect, property loss, administrative impropriety, and survey violations — creates a polarized overall picture. Prospective families should weigh the high frequency of compassionate frontline caregivers and engaging activities against the documented concerns about management, staffing consistency, and a small but meaningful number of serious incidents. If considering this facility, reviewers’ patterns suggest it would be prudent to (1) ask specific questions about recent survey results and any remediation plans, (2) inquire about staffing levels and typical nurse/CNA coverage on the unit of interest, (3) document inventory procedures for personal items, and (4) meet key staff (nursing leadership, activities director, social work) to evaluate responsiveness and communication practices based on individual priorities.
