Overall sentiment in the collected reviews for Harvard Creek Post Acute is mixed, with a substantial number of strongly positive accounts balanced by several serious and recurring negative allegations. Many reviewers praise the hands-on caregiving teams, rehabilitation outcomes, and specific nursing leadership, while other reviewers describe neglectful care and safety failures. This produces a polarized portrait: a facility that appears capable of excellent, attentive care in many instances but also has multiple reports of lapses that family members found alarming and, in at least one case, required a state complaint.
Care quality and clinical services: A frequent positive theme is the strength of the facility's rehabilitation and therapy services. Several reviewers credited daily therapy and skilled PT/OT staff with significant functional recovery after hip surgery or other post-acute needs, sometimes restoring independence and needing minimal assistance at discharge. Reviewers also described 24-hour nursing availability and dementia-capable care as strengths. Conversely, there are multiple, specific complaints about neglectful clinical care: residents allegedly left in unsanitary conditions (including being left in feces on more than one occasion), long nurse response times (reports of 40-minute waits), running out of topical creams for rashes, unreported falls, bruising, bedsores, pneumonia diagnoses followed by hospitalization or ICU care, and at least one allegation that staff refused to take a resident to the emergency room. These are serious safety concerns and are repeated enough across reviews to represent a major pattern of concern.
Staff, leadership, and communication: Many reviews repeatedly name and praise the Director of Nursing (Nona) and other frontline leaders (assistant director Zelyn/Zealyn, Charge Nurse Esther, CNA Doris, and others like Janet) for responsiveness, advocacy, compassion, and professional management. Multiple families described smooth transitions, good communication, and management that was helpful and hands-on, with praise for the nursing leadership's availability and problem-solving. At the same time, some reviewers report unprofessional behavior from certain staff members (including specific names) and characterize some shifts or personnel as rude, negligent, or financially driven in decision-making. This suggests inconsistency in staff performance and possible variability between shifts or teams: strong leadership and exemplary staff are often mentioned alongside concerning incidents attributed to other employees.
Facility environment and amenities: Several reviewers describe the facility as super clean, well-maintained, and homey, with a park-like outdoor area, friendly greetings, and appropriate COVID precautions. The small size (about 55 beds) was framed positively by many reviewers, contributing to a community feel and individualized attention. However, this praise is not universal; a number of reviews explicitly call the facility filthy or cite cleanliness concerns. There are also reports of missing personal belongings, which compounds family concerns about safety and oversight.
Trends, contradictions, and risk signals: The strongest pattern in these reviews is high variance: many families report exceptional care, strong leadership, and successful rehabilitation, while a smaller but significant subset reports serious neglect, safety failures, and unprofessional conduct. Because of these polarized accounts, the facility appears to provide excellent care at times but also has recurring, serious negative incidents according to reviewers. Notably, allegations that falls were not reported, residents were left unattended in unhygienic conditions, or that staff refused emergency transport are red flags that several families found serious enough to file formal complaints. The presence of both glowing and harshly critical reviews—sometimes naming the same managers—indicates either inconsistent staffing/oversight or that individual experiences differ significantly depending on unit, shift, or timing.
Conclusion: In sum, Harvard Creek Post Acute receives many very positive comments about compassionate, skilled staff (with repeated praise for specific nursing leaders), effective rehabilitative therapy, and a welcoming, small-facility atmosphere. However, multiple reviewers reported urgent and serious concerns about resident neglect, responsiveness, safety incidents, cleanliness, and missing items. These mixed signals suggest that while the facility is capable of high-quality care, there are documented instances of lapses that warrant attention. Prospective residents and families would be well-advised to tour the facility, ask for recent state inspection reports and incident histories, inquire about staffing levels and turnover, and speak directly with nursing leadership about how they address past complaints and prevent recurrence before making placement decisions.
