Overall impression: The reviews for Harvest Crossing Post Acute are mixed, showing a clear polarization in family and patient experiences. Several reviewers praise the facility for compassionate, attentive care—particularly noting kind nurses, helpful aides, and effective physical therapy—while other reviewers report serious concerns including rudeness, neglect, and clinical oversights. This split suggests variability in service quality that may depend on unit, shift, or specific staff members.
Care quality and clinical notes: Positive comments highlight good physical therapy that helped patients regain mobility and a number of nursing staff who were described as kind, friendly, and helpful with personal care tasks (for example, assistance with showers and shampooing). Families also reported being kept informed about care. However, there are troubling clinical complaints: at least one reviewer reported a wrist injury and inadequate wound care (described as taped), and another reported meals not being provided. Several reviewers used strong language ("not taking care of patients," "staff don't care," "disgusted with facility") indicating some instances of perceived neglect. These clinical concerns are serious and represent the most significant negative theme across the summaries.
Staff behavior and consistency: Staff behavior emerges as a core dividing line. Multiple accounts commend specific staff as caring and helpful, and there are repeated compliments to staff who assisted with therapy and daily needs. Conversely, other accounts accuse staff of being rude, lazy, inconsiderate, and even disrespectful toward patients and outside medical personnel. The presence of both praise and strong criticism points to inconsistency: some residents receive excellent personal attention while others feel neglected or mistreated. Allegations of favoritism and a "worthless scheduler" further suggest management-level or scheduling issues that could contribute to uneven care coverage.
Management, communication, and administration: Several reviewers specifically note positive administrative involvement—comments that the administrator and the Director of Nursing were actively involved in patient care—and some families expressed gratitude for how they were informed and treated. A technical/process improvement was also noted: a new phone system that improved communications. At the same time, complaints about paperwork assistance being unhelpful and favoritism in scheduling point to administrative weaknesses that affect families' experiences. The dual reports of engaged leadership and administrative problems suggest that leadership may be trying to address issues but that operational gaps remain.
Facilities, services, and other offerings: The physical environment receives favorable mention: clean rooms and a pleasant facility smell were explicitly noted. Transport services are available and were cited positively by at least one reviewer. There is limited information about dining beyond the one report that meals were not provided; this isolated but serious complaint should be clarified directly with the facility. Activities and broader program offerings are not described in the provided summaries, so there is insufficient data to assess those areas.
Patterns, risks, and recommendations based on reviews: The dominant pattern is variability—some reviewers report excellent, attentive care and a clean, well-run facility, while others report neglectful or even harmful experiences and administrative problems. The most serious red flags are the clinical concerns (injury and wound-care complaints) and allegations of missed meals and disrespectful conduct. These merit direct follow-up when evaluating the facility. Given the mixed reports, prospective residents and families should verify current staffing levels and protocols, ask about incident reporting and resolution, check how paperwork and scheduling are handled, and arrange a tour that includes speaking with both nursing leadership (administrator/DON) and frontline staff. If possible, seek recent references from current or recently discharged families to assess whether the positive trends (active leadership involvement, improved phone communications, good therapy) are consistent and whether reported negative issues have been addressed.
Summary conclusion: Harvest Crossing Post Acute demonstrates strengths in therapy, some compassionate frontline caregivers, and a clean environment with engaged leadership in some instances. However, significant negative reports—particularly regarding inconsistent care, paperwork and scheduling issues, and at least one alleged clinical misstep—mean the facility may provide very different experiences depending on timing and staff assignment. The reviews support a cautious, inquiry-driven approach for anyone considering this facility: validate current practices in person and get specific answers about the concerns raised in these reviews before making a placement decision.
