The reviews for Fayetteville Health and Rehabilitation Center are strongly mixed, with clear polarization between families who experienced attentive, compassionate care and those who reported serious safety, management, and cleanliness concerns. Two dominant themes emerge: a consistently praised rehabilitation team and many individual staff members who are described as caring and above-and-beyond; and recurring allegations of lapses in basic nursing care, safety, and administration oversight that in some cases are described as severe.
Care quality and staffing: A substantial number of reviewers describe excellent hands-on care — nurses, CNAs, and therapists who are attentive, gentle, and effective. Multiple families attribute successful rehabilitation outcomes to the therapy team (improved mobility, decreased reliance on canes). Many reviews highlight staff warmth, professionalism, prompt communications, and individualized attention. At the same time, a contrasting set of reviews details troubling nursing lapses: ignored call buttons, patients left wet, lack of visible nursing staff on hallways, and instances where families felt residents were neglected. These conflicting accounts suggest notable inconsistency in day-to-day nursing responsiveness and oversight.
Safety and clinical concerns: Several serious clinical issues appear repeatedly in the negative reviews. There is at least one explicit report of a resident fall with facial bruising and an alleged cover-up by staff, plus multiple complaints about oxygen management (oxygen not provided or not turned on when needed). Reviewers also mention medication lapses and at least one instance where readmission was denied. These concerns point to systemic risk areas around medication management, emergency response, oxygen protocols, and transparent incident reporting. Families expressed that accountability and follow-up from administration were often lacking, though other reviews note administration later became more communicative.
Management, administration, and accountability: Management is another polarizing subject. Some reviews state the facility suffered from poor administration — with allegations of mismanagement that led to demotions and a low star rating — while others say administration improved, became transparent about the rating, and handled issues openly. Several reviewers specifically praise front-desk staff (Liz) and name individual employees (e.g., Jennifer, Mastonia) as exemplary. The pattern indicates there may have been identifiable leadership problems in the past with subsequent staffing or managerial changes that improved perceptions for some families, but not all issues appear fully resolved according to reviews.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: The physical facility receives mixed feedback. Positive comments include pleasant smells, clean conditions during meals, and an overall comfortable, home-like atmosphere for some residents. However, multiple reviewers describe dated facilities, old carpeting, initial uncleanliness that required later remediation, and persistent odor issues. Room size is a frequent complaint — rooms are often described as very small with limited space for belongings and minimal privacy. Activity programming is criticized as sparse or non-existent in several reviews, with hallways described as deserted at times.
Dining and activities: Meal quality is generally viewed favorably in a number of reviews — food described as good and service attentive. In contrast, activities programming gets consistently poor marks from those reviewers who noted a lack of events or engagement opportunities. This suggests the facility may prioritize clinical/rehab services and meals over robust long-term engagement programming, or that activity offerings may be inconsistent.
Patterns and notable contradictions: The strongest and most consistent positive thread is excellence in rehabilitation therapy and numerous reports of compassionate individual caregivers who make a meaningful difference. The strongest negative threads are safety/clinical protocol failures (falls, oxygen, medication issues), inconsistent nursing responsiveness, and management/accountability concerns. Many reviews indicate the facility’s performance changed over time — some families recount initial problems that improved after staff changes, while others report enduring serious issues, including reports of resident deaths soon after placement. This variability points to a facility with pockets of strong staff and clinical capability but uneven implementation, oversight, and consistency.
Overall impression and guidance based on reviews: Reviews indicate Fayetteville Health and Rehabilitation Center can deliver excellent, rehab-focused care when its therapy team and certain nursing/administrative staff are engaged and functioning well. However, the facility also exhibits recurring and potentially serious weaknesses in basic nursing responsiveness, safety protocols (oxygen and fall management), cleanliness in areas, and consistent administrative accountability. Prospective families should weigh the demonstrated strengths in therapy and named staff against the documented safety and management concerns. When considering this facility, it would be prudent to tour in person, ask specific questions about fall prevention and oxygen/medication protocols, verify staffing ratios and call-bell response times, request recent inspection/deficiency history, meet the therapy team, inquire about activities programming and room sizes, and check how the facility communicates with families about incidents and insurance/medication changes. This approach will help families determine whether their loved one is likely to experience the positive outcomes many reviewers report or to face the concerning issues described by others.
