The reviews for Sherwood Nursing & Rehab Center are sharply divided, producing a polarized overall picture. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility for compassionate, hands-on caregiving—especially from CNAs and aides who are described as attentive, personable, and familial. Several reviewers emphasized that these caregivers remembered residents by name, provided personalized attention, coordinated transportation to appointments, and went beyond expectations to treat residents like family. Multiple reports noted the facility as clean, smelling pleasant and home-like, with attractive rooms, a salon, and an active calendar of social and recreational programming (movies, bingo, crafts, music). Many residents and families reported beneficial physical therapy and daily therapy sessions that improved physical and mental well-being, and some families said they would not want their loved ones to be anywhere else.
Counterbalancing these positive accounts are repeated, serious concerns about inconsistent clinical care, safety, and professionalism. Numerous reviews describe unresponsiveness to calls for help, delayed or inattentive nursing care, and situations where fall-prevention tools were denied or not provided—reports include at least one resident falling twice. There are multiple accounts of medical deterioration attributed to facility care, including dehydration, septic urinary tract infection, and a subsequent ICU stay. These reports indicate that some families felt the facility’s clinical oversight and timely response to medical needs were insufficient.
Infection control and hygiene emerge as a prominent cluster of worries in several reviews. While many families praise cleanliness, other reviewers reported filthy rooms, urine odors, uncared-for spills, and even blood-stained gowns. Specific lapses noted include staff allegedly wearing the same gloves across tasks, thermometers used without covers, and cross-contamination risks—issues that heighten concerns about infection transmission. These contradictory descriptions suggest variable housekeeping and clinical-practice standards that may differ by unit, shift, or staff member.
Staffing and interpersonal behavior present another clear pattern of mixed experience. CNAs and some frontline staff receive frequent praise for their compassion and hands-on care. Conversely, many complaints are aimed at nurses, supervisors, social workers, and management—reported as rude, insensitive, unprofessional, or “salesperson-like.” Examples include insensitive phone calls during a funeral, dismissive attitudes toward family concerns, accusations from a social worker, and management appearing to prioritize image over honest communication. Several reviews describe conflicting information from different staff members and a lack of coordinated doctor rounds or consistent medical supervision. These communication breakdowns extend to rehab services as well: some residents received helpful PT and therapy while others report inadequate supervision, limited walking time, broken promises about showers and therapy schedules, and dissatisfaction with rehab outcomes.
Dining and dietary management are also inconsistent across reviews. Some families praise good, home-cooked meals and residents enjoying food and the salon experience. Others complain of poor meal quality (thin-sliced meat, missing requested cheese), cold or bland food, and failure to follow special dietary plans such as diabetic menus. These differences mirror the broader pattern of variability in service quality: some shifts or units operate well, while others fall short.
Safety, professionalism, and allegation severity need careful emphasis. A subset of reviews alleges rough handling of residents, instances of staff raising voices or arguing in view of residents, and overall unsafe care practices. At least one family reported pursuing legal action. Several reviews explicitly warn others about entrusting non-independent residents to the facility because of these problems. These are serious red flags reported by multiple reviewers and indicate that for some residents the facility’s safeguards and staff training may be inadequate.
Taken together, the reviews point to a facility with strong strengths at the caregiver level—particularly among CNAs and activities/therapy personnel—and notable weaknesses in supervision, consistency, infection control, and management behavior. The experience appears to vary widely depending on which staff members, shifts, or units are involved. For prospective residents and families, the pattern suggests that individualized, on-site assessment is essential: ask specific questions about fall-prevention policies, infection-control procedures, staffing levels and turnover, rehab schedules and expected outcomes, dietary accommodations, and how complaints are handled. Observing mealtime, cleanliness on the floor, interactions between nurses and aides, and whether staff respond promptly to call lights can help gauge whether Sherwood will meet a particular resident’s needs. Finally, because reviews show both exemplary caregiving and serious lapses, families should monitor care closely after placement and maintain open, documented communication with facility management about any safety or clinical concerns.
