Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial subset of reviewers offer strong, detailed praise for Shea Post Acute Rehabilitation Center’s therapy programs, wound care, and many individual caregivers, while a different (and sometimes overlapping) subset reports serious clinical and operational failures, neglect, and hygiene issues. The most consistent positive theme is excellence in rehabilitation — physical and occupational therapy are repeatedly described as outstanding, with many reviewers crediting therapists and outpatient clinicians for measurable functional improvements and successful discharges home. Wound care is another repeatedly noted strength, with several reviewers reporting that wounds healed well under facility care. Many staff members (CNAs, RNs, night staff) are singled out by name for compassionate, skillful, and attentive care, and admissions and some case managers are praised for being helpful and proactive.
However, there is a large and sustained set of negative reports that raise safety and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reviewers allege serious medication errors and unsafe administration practices (including reports of narcotics being crushed and mixed into applesauce/yogurt), missed or delayed medications, and documentation or communication failures. Call lights being ignored or even turned off, long response times (instances cited up to 30 minutes), and chronic understaffing — particularly on night shifts — are frequent themes and appear to be root causes for many care lapses. Several reviews describe neglectful conditions that include soiled or unchanged bedding, residents left wet or uncared for, failure to assist with basic hygiene (teeth, shaving), bedsores, dehydration, and resulting hospitalizations. A small number of reviewers explicitly link the facility’s care to severe outcomes including sepsis and death after discharge; those accounts emphasize poor discharge planning and inadequate post-discharge support.
Cleanliness and food/dining are areas of substantial variability. Some reviewers report the facility as very clean, well-maintained, and undergoing renovations, praising a restaurant-style dining room and specific kitchen staff or chefs. Conversely, many others report filthy conditions: bugs or burned insects in food, hair or floating flakes in pitchers, stains and blood on linens, holes in sheets, cockroaches in bathrooms, strong odors (smoke, body odor, dirty linen), and generally dated, dingy common areas. Food quality is described as inconsistent — ranging from gourmet/chef-prepared meals to inedible, soggy, or unappetizing fare. There are multiple accounts of residents being left without food or assistance during meals, and of feeding/feeding-assistance not being reliably provided to dependent residents.
Management, communication, and administrative practice draw repeated criticism even from some reviewers who praised frontline staff. Many reviewers report unresponsive management, unanswered phone calls, and case managers who do not follow up. There are allegations of misrepresentation by admissions/marketing (promised private rooms or services not delivered), unsigned or incorrect paperwork, and wrongful reassignment of rooms or belongings going missing. Some reviewers allege discriminatory behavior and unprofessional conduct by particular staff members, including explicit mentions of racist behavior. Several reviews also allege that some positive reviews are fake or posted by employees, reflecting distrust in the facility’s public reputation.
Safety systems and logistics show concerning breakdowns in multiple reports: lost lab samples delaying infection detection, oxygen running out or not being provided, wrong transportation addresses, ER transfers due to neglected conditions, and at least one claimed denial of readmission. There are also reports that clinical staffing or oversight (physicians, DON) can be inconsistent — while some clinicians (doctors, NP Rachael Wilkins, wound nurses) are praised, other reviewers note doctors rarely present or poor physician engagement. Shift-to-shift communication and onboarding appear spotty in some accounts, contributing to errors and inconsistent care.
A notable pattern is wide variability by shift, unit, and even by individual staff member. Many reviewers emphasize that their experience depended heavily on specific nurses, CNAs, therapists, or time frames: some families found the place to be “top-notch” with a feeling of family-like care, while others reported neglect and unsafe conditions. Night shift and particular team members are repeatedly called out as either exemplary or severely deficient. Renovations and improvements are mentioned, and some reviews indicate that care has improved over time, but the inconsistency remains the dominant theme.
In conclusion, reviewers portray Shea Post Acute Rehabilitation Center as a facility with real clinical strengths — especially in rehabilitation and wound care — and numerous dedicated, compassionate frontline caregivers. At the same time, the facility appears to struggle with systemic issues that have produced serious safety, hygiene, staffing, and management problems for many residents. Prospective patients and families should weigh both sides carefully: verify current staffing levels, medication-safety protocols, infection control measures, dining and feeding assistance practices, and management responsiveness; request to meet therapy and nursing leaders; visit multiple shifts (including nights); and confirm any promises about room type, discharge planning, and transportation in writing. The reviews suggest that while many individuals have excellent outcomes and strong relationships with staff, there are real and significant reports of neglect and dangerous lapses that should be fully investigated before placement.
