The reviews for Cave City Nursing Home present a mixed but sharply divided picture, with several reviewers praising the facility and staff while others report serious safety and management concerns. Positive comments highlight a warm, friendly atmosphere and compassionate caregiving. Multiple reviewers said staff were kind, caring, and treated residents with dignity and respect; some families stated that care exceeded what they could have provided at home, and rehab stays were described positively. The facility itself is described as clean and secure, offering many activities and being open to family involvement through window and in-person visits. These attributes suggest that, for many residents, the facility provides a supportive, activity-rich environment with quality clinical and rehabilitative services.
Conversely, several reviews raise very serious negative issues that cannot be overlooked. The most alarming cluster of complaints concerns resident safety and supervision: one report states a walker was not provided, a patient fell, hit their head, and ultimately died; another notes a perceived attitude among staff that "it's ok if they fall." Additional safety-related complaints include the claim that no one checked on a patient during a long visit and that staff response can be slow — one reviewer said it took about 10 minutes to track someone down. These comments point to potential problems with fall prevention protocols, supervision, and timely response to resident needs.
Staffing and management perceptions are another major theme with mixed messages. Several reviewers explicitly describe the facility as understaffed and report delayed responses. At the same time, other reviewers praise the staff as "awesome" and highly recommend the facility. This contrast suggests variability in performance that could be linked to staffing levels, specific shifts, or inconsistent training. Alongside staffing concerns, at least one reviewer characterized management as poor and the workplace culture as toxic ("backstabbing employees"), indicating possible leadership or organizational issues that may affect staff morale and consistency of care.
Facilities and family access are generally seen positively: the building is described as clean and secure, many activities are available, and the facility is open to family visits, including window visits. These are meaningful strengths for resident quality of life and family engagement. However, cost/value concerns were raised: at least one reviewer felt the facility was high-cost and poor value, which may be important for prospective residents and families to weigh against the variable experiences reported.
Overall sentiment is polarized. There is a clear set of strong positive indicators — compassionate staff, successful rehab outcomes, cleanliness, and family-friendly visitation — that lead some families to highly recommend the home. At the same time, the presence of severe safety allegations, reported understaffing, delayed responses, and complaints about management create a countervailing set of red flags. Taken together, the reviews suggest that while many residents receive high-quality care and enjoy the facility's programs, there are critical concerns around fall prevention, supervision, staffing consistency, and leadership that deserve further investigation. Prospective residents and families should seek detailed answers from the facility about safety protocols, staff-to-resident ratios and training, incident reporting and follow-up, and how management addresses staff conflicts and morale. Additionally, asking for references from current families and reviewing recent inspection or incident reports would help clarify whether the negative reports reflect isolated incidents or systemic issues.
