Overview and overall sentiment: Reviews for Downey Post Acute are strongly polarized, with a large number of very positive accounts praising rehabilitation, individual caregivers, and recent management-led improvements, alongside a smaller but serious set of negative accounts alleging neglect, abuse, medication errors, and safety lapses. Many reviewers describe outstanding therapy outcomes, compassionate nursing and CNA care, and strong case management support (several staff are repeatedly named and commended). At the same time, multiple reviewers reported incidents that raise red flags about safety, staffing consistency, and facility conditions. The volume and intensity of both praise and complaints suggest a facility with notable strengths that also has recurring problems or variability in performance depending on timing, staff on duty, or unit.
Care quality and clinical concerns: A dominant positive theme is the facility’s rehabilitation capability: PT, OT, and speech therapy are frequently praised for producing good outcomes after surgery or injury, with specific therapists and therapy teams called out for effective, attentive care. Many families report successful short-term rehab stays and significant functional improvement. Conversely, serious clinical concerns appear in other reviews. These include medication errors and delayed drugs (one reported leading to an ER visit), oxygen management problems (reports of oxygen running out), missing medication lists at transfer/discharge, and failures of nurse responsiveness to call lights. A subset of reviews alleges severe neglect or physical mistreatment (e.g., skin tears, bruises, allegations of being tied to a wheelchair), as well as reports of false documentation and cover-ups. Those accounts, when present, are highly concerning and suggest episodes of unsafe care for some residents.
Staffing, personnel, and leadership: Staff are the most frequently mentioned element — and the reviews split into strong praise and sharp criticism. Many reviewers name and laud individual staff (nurses, CNAs, case managers, DONs, activity directors) for empathy, professionalism, and responsiveness; names that recur positively include Jasmine (case manager), Maria (DON), Rhea (DON), Jason (administrator), Priya (speech therapist), and many CNAs and therapists. Several reviewers emphasize that new management has produced a meaningful turnaround: building facelifts, improved atmosphere, and better staff morale. However, other reviewers describe rude or unprofessional nurses and admissions staff (specific names like Audrey and Vanessa were cited negatively), slow or absent responses from staff, staff distracted by phones, and staff covering for each other. These contrasting views point to inconsistent performance across shifts or departments. Multiple reviews request more staff and training, indicating perceived staffing or competence gaps at times.
Facility, cleanliness, and maintenance: Many reviews praise renovations, a refreshed building exterior and interior, garden/walkway areas, and generally clean, well-kept rooms in many parts of the facility. Activities spaces, a rehabilitation room, and a pleasant entryway are frequently noted positively. However, other reviewers report persistent cleanliness problems (stale urine smell, sticky floors, filthy restrooms), old furniture and fixtures in some areas, and maintenance hazards such as loose floor tiles and mattresses that slide — all of which increase risk to residents. There are also frequent mentions of shared rooms and multi-person restrooms (including a report of a six-person restroom), which some reviewers find acceptable while others cite privacy and hygiene concerns.
Dining and resident life: Resident life and activities receive many favorable comments: active programming (music, dancing, bingo, arts & crafts, morning socials), an engaged activities director, and family-friendly events. Several reviewers said activities improved residents’ moods and gave a home-like environment. Dining reports are mixed. Some reviews praise homemade meals, dietary accommodations, and a dietician on staff; others criticize meal quality sharply, calling some meals “extremely poor” or describing dried/rubbery food. This inconsistency suggests variable kitchen performance or differences between reviewer expectations and actual offerings.
Safety, documentation, and administrative issues: A recurring set of concerns involves documentation and transitions: discharge misdocumentation, missing med lists for paramedics, and perceived evasiveness from medical or administrative staff in some cases. A number of reviews describe theft or missing clothing/personal items, as well as alleged cover-ups and staff collusion. There are also descriptions of lax supervision (especially nights/weekends mentioned in several complaints) and inconsistent responsiveness from social workers or supervisors when serious issues were raised. At least one review references police and state reports, and some describe near-fatal consequences reportedly tied to facility care. These reports, even if representing a minority, are serious and would warrant direct inquiry and review of inspection records and incident reports.
Patterns, turnaround narrative, and reliability considerations: A strong pattern in the reviews is a narrative of turnaround: multiple reviewers explicitly state that under newer management the facility has improved — naming administrators and DONs who they feel made positive changes. Many families note improved cleanliness, better staff morale, and more effective therapy after management changes. Simultaneously, a smaller but vocal group of reviewers reports acute and severe problems, including alleged abuse, neglect, and incompetence. Some reviews question the authenticity of others (concerns about review legitimacy are noted), but the repeated positive mentions of the same staff and consistent descriptions of therapy outcomes lend credibility to the positive accounts. The coexistence of improvement stories and severe negative allegations suggests variability over time, across units, or by shift, and highlights the need for prospective residents and families to verify current conditions directly.
Recommendations based on review themes: Given the mixed but substantive feedback, prospective families should (1) ask to speak directly with the current Director of Nursing and case manager about staffing ratios, medication management protocols, and recent incidents/complaints; (2) request recent inspection reports, incident logs, and evidence of staff training/certifications; (3) visit at different times (day/night/weekend) to observe staffing, cleanliness, and atmosphere; (4) discuss discharge and medication transfer procedures to ensure accurate documentation; and (5) inquire about cameras/monitoring, theft prevention measures, and the facility’s process for handling and reporting allegations of abuse. For families considering rehab stays, the consistently positive therapy reports are encouraging, but demand clear commitments about nurse responsiveness and safe medication practices.
Bottom line: Downey Post Acute appears to provide excellent rehabilitation services and has many deeply committed staff members who elicit strong praise from families; recent management changes and renovations are frequently credited with improvements. However, multiple reviews report serious lapses — including medication mistakes, neglect, alleged abuse, cleanliness issues, and documentation problems — that cannot be ignored. The facility may deliver very good outcomes for many residents while still experiencing sporadic or systemic safety and staffing problems in other instances. Potential residents and families should weigh the many positive therapy and staffing reports against the serious negative allegations, perform targeted due diligence, and maintain active advocacy and oversight if they choose this facility.
