The reviews for Nursing & Rehabilitation Center at Good Shepherd are highly mixed, with strong polarization between families who report excellent, attentive rehabilitative care and those who describe serious lapses in safety, communication, and basic caregiving. Recurrent positive themes focus on the facility’s therapy offerings, cleanliness, and the compassionate behavior of many frontline staff. Several reviewers specifically praise coordinated physical and occupational therapy, diverse therapeutic activities, and engaged therapists who support meaningful rehabilitation and safe transitions home. Multiple families describe a pleasant, home-like environment, newer-looking buildings, attractive landscaping and indoor features (aquarium, nicely decorated common areas). Dietary staff and food quality receive positive mentions from numerous reviewers as well.
However, the negative reports raise important concerns about safety, consistency, and management oversight. A number of reviewers describe understaffing (particularly evenings and weekends), ignored call lights and alarms, delayed or absent responses to falls, and instances where family members had to perform basic care such as bathing, dressing, cleaning, or even spraying for ants. There are repeated complaints about inconsistent or inadequate wound care (including claims wounds were not changed daily), hygiene lapses by staff, and alleged serious medical errors (one reviewer connected a death to a clogged port and lack of daily line care; others described misdiagnoses or poor handling of infections). These are among the most severe and recurring themes and suggest variability in clinical quality and adherence to protocols.
Communication and management accountability emerge as another major fault line. Numerous reviewers report poor or dishonest communication from staff and administration—families said they were not informed about blood draws, test results, or transfers; in other cases, reviewers alleged staff or administration lied about a patient’s status or cleared infections prematurely. Several reviewers felt administration did not act effectively when concerns were raised, citing blame-shifting, false promises, and inadequate investigation of serious allegations (including a sexual-harassment complaint). Conversely, some families specifically praised administrators and care coordinators for being informative and helpful, indicating that experience may depend heavily on which staff members or shifts are involved.
Facility and operational conditions are also described inconsistently. Many reviewers highlight that the building and rooms are clean, well-maintained, and pleasant, with private rooms available and orderly common spaces. Others report overcrowding (two beds per room), cramped layouts, antiquated equipment in some areas, pest problems, missing belongings, and transfers to incorrect rooms. These operational issues—especially loss of personal items and pest reports—are upsetting to families and undermine trust even when clinical care is acceptable.
Staff quality appears to vary by role, shift, and over time. Numerous reviews praise nurses, CNAs, and therapists as caring and supportive contributors to recovery. Yet other reviewers describe unprofessional CNAs, high CNA turnover, aides who leave residents wet or unattended, and staff who do not follow basic infection control or personal-care procedures (e.g., handling of dentures, improper mask/sanitizer use). Several accounts emphasize that weekends and night shifts are the most problematic times, with families needing to intervene by calling or visiting to ensure adequate care.
Activities and dining are generally regarded as strengths by multiple reviewers: food quality is often described as good or fair-to-above-average, and social programming (bingo, bible study, daily engagement, aquarium) receives positive mention. However, meal service issues were raised in some negative reports (meals served cold, assisted feeds being delayed), highlighting inconsistency.
Overall patterns indicate a facility that can deliver high-quality rehabilitation and compassionate care under certain circumstances and staffing, but also one that demonstrates intermittent serious breakdowns in safety, hygiene, communication, and management responsiveness. The experience appears highly dependent on shift, unit, and personnel continuity. Notable red flags from the reviews that prospective families should verify include wound-care protocols and documentation, staffing levels on nights/weekends, infection control practices, dementia-care training, handling of personal belongings, incident reporting and follow-up procedures, and how administration responds to complaints. Positive signs to validate include therapy program details, patient-to-staff ratios during therapy, dietary accommodations, facility cleanliness, and feedback from current residents’ families.
If considering this facility, visit multiple times (including evenings/weekends), speak with therapy staff and the Director of Nursing about wound care and infection-control routines, ask for recent staffing ratios and turnover data, request examples of how the facility handles incidents and family communication, and review recent state inspection reports. Given the polarized reviews, in-person assessment and thorough questioning of clinical processes and incident response will be essential to determine whether Good Shepherd’s strengths align with your loved one’s needs and whether the management is consistently enforcing quality and safety across all shifts and units.
