Overall sentiment: Reviews for The Blossoms at Rogers Rehab & Nursing Center are highly polarized, with a pronounced split between strongly positive experiences and severe negative complaints. Many reviewers praise individual staff members and clinical leaders, describing a family-like culture, quick responses from aides and nurses, and strong rehabilitation and medical oversight. In contrast, an equally substantial portion of reviews detail serious concerns about cleanliness, neglect, poor management, and safety. The mixed feedback creates an inconsistent overall picture: some residents and families call it the "best place" and award five stars, while others describe it as "disgusting," "filthy," and potentially harmful to residents' health.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Positive comments focus on attentive direct care, effective rehab, and highly regarded clinicians (medical director and nurse practitioner). Several reviewers credit therapy, nursing, and aides with facilitating recovery and treating residents with dignity. However, multiple negative reviews allege clinically significant lapses: infrequent showers, reduced oral fluids, problematic PEG-tube feeding, resulting weight loss, dehydration, malnutrition, and hospital transfers. There are also reports of scheduled medications not being administered and failure to notify families when emergency medical transport was called. These allegations point to both care-process failures and potential risks to resident safety when they occur.
Staff behavior and culture: Staff descriptions range from "talented," "friendly," and "go above and beyond" to "unprofessional," "rude," and "dishonest." Many reviews praise particular CNAs, nurses, therapists, and department heads who made families feel heard and residents comfortable. Conversely, recurring complaints include high staff turnover, poorly trained CNAs, unresponsiveness (slow or no response to call buttons), and episodes of unprofessional conduct (screaming on the phone, childish behavior). Several reviewers specifically called out management or social work staff as dishonest or unhelpful, and a few named the director of nursing as unresponsive, suggesting leadership-related communication and accountability problems.
Facility, hygiene, and environment: A dominant negative theme concerns the physical plant and cleanliness. Multiple reviewers report urine and feces odors in resident halls, dirty common areas, pest problems (cockroaches and ants), and soaked/wet ashtrays or cigarette refuse outdoors. Some areas such as the front office and visiting rooms are described as clean by certain families, indicating uneven maintenance across the facility. Issues with cold rooms, inadequate temperature control, lack of air conditioning, and barely warm bathroom water were reported. Several reviewers characterize the building as old, cramped, dreary, or poorly maintained, with deceptive renovation claims that did not address persistent underlying problems.
Dining, activities, and outdoor spaces: Comments on dining are mixed but lean negative: some reviewers note hearty portions and appreciated meals, while many complain that food is served cold or is poor in quality. The outdoor and visiting areas are criticized for being neglected—trash, cigarette butts, and no grass were specifically noted—and visiting rooms sometimes described as small. Activity programming is another concern; some reviewers reported active, positive programming and an engaged atmosphere, while others said there are few activities or "nothing for residents to do," suggesting significant variability between units or shifts.
Management, communication, and patterns: A key pattern across reviews is inconsistency—experiences appear highly variable depending on unit, shift, or staff on duty. Some families report responsive department heads, coordinated care, and compassionate administration; others describe rude, dismissive, or deceptive management, lost personal belongings, and failures to communicate important events (e.g., EMT calls). High staff turnover and reports of poor training may contribute to these inconsistencies. Several reviews also allege neglect, discrimination, or abuse; while these accounts are not uniform, their recurrence is notable and raises concerns about oversight, reporting, and quality-control mechanisms.
Conclusion and notable takeaways: The Blossoms at Rogers has a dual reputation: it can deliver excellent, personalized care in some cases—particularly rehab and memory care, with individual staff members who are highly valued—yet it simultaneously receives serious complaints about sanitation, neglect, and management. The most significant risk themes from reviews are hygiene/pest issues, clinical neglect leading to dehydration or weight loss, missed medications, and inconsistent leadership responsiveness. Families and referral sources should be aware of this variability and consider on-site visits, direct conversations with clinical leaders, inspection of cleanliness and temperature controls, and monitoring care processes closely if choosing this facility. The mixed nature of the reviews suggests pockets of strong practice and caring staff coexisting with systemic problems that merit attention and remediation.
