Overall impression: The reviews of Friendship Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center are deeply mixed, presenting a facility that can deliver excellent clinical rehabilitation, compassionate bedside care, and a pleasant environment for some residents while simultaneously showing systemic weaknesses that have led to serious negative experiences for others. Many reviewers explicitly praise CNAs, therapists, activities staff, and maintenance teams by name and credit the facility with strong therapy outcomes, a clean atmosphere, and a welcoming, well-maintained campus. However, an equally large subset of reviewers report significant safety, hygiene, communication, and administrative problems. These divergent accounts suggest considerable variability in resident experience depending on unit assignment, shift staffing, or individual staff on duty.
Care quality and staffing: A central theme is inconsistency in clinical care. Numerous accounts celebrate attentive, compassionate nursing assistants and skilled therapy teams who produced measurable improvements in mobility and swallowing for patients. Physical, occupational, and speech therapy are repeatedly called out as strengths; specific therapists and PT/OT programs are praised for returning patients to function. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews document understaffing, slow or nonresponsive care (long waits for call lights), delayed or missed medications including insulin and IV mismanagement, and instances where therapy referrals were delayed or therapy was not provided. Several reviewers described serious lapses in monitoring and clinical follow-up (e.g., lack of ER follow-up, IV not connected), and some reported that staff shortages or inattentiveness contributed to avoidable declines in health.
Safety, abuse, and incident reports: Multiple reviewers alleged serious safety incidents: falls with inadequate supervision, patient escape requiring police involvement, verbal and physical abuse by staff or other patients, and premature or unsafe discharges without family approval. There are also reports about inconsistent infection control (PPE usage), a patient contracting COVID twice, and at least one allegation of vaccine administration without disclosure. These are high-severity concerns and recur frequently enough in the reviews to warrant attention and potential regulatory scrutiny.
Cleanliness and facilities: Many reviewers commend the facility’s cleanliness, well-kept grounds, tastefully decorated common spaces, and responsive maintenance/housekeeping. Others—sometimes within the same corpus of reviews—describe extremely unhygienic rooms, soiled gowns, unclean shared bathrooms, and fecal messes left unaddressed. This split indicates that cleanliness and housekeeping performance may vary by wing, shift, or specific staff teams. Facility amenities, outdoor patios, and therapy spaces receive favorable comments, while interior wear-and-tear (damaged flooring, dated finishes) was noted by a few.
Dining and nutrition: Dining experiences are highly variable. Several reviewers state meals are healthy, dietitian-coordinated, and well-portionized, while many others complain about cold food, small portions, poor taste, refusal to reheat, and missed snacks (notably before dialysis). These mixed reports suggest that dining quality may be inconsistent between meal periods, dietary staff, or patient diets.
Activities and social environment: The activities program is frequently praised: bingo, live entertainers, horse racing games, cooking classes, religious services, dog visits, and other group events were highlighted as meaningful engagement that improved resident morale. Multiple reviewers credited the activities director for keeping residents engaged and happy.
Administration, communication, and admissions/discharges: There are strong positive experiences with admissions, check-in/out, and specific administrators (names like Shayne and Tina appear positively). At the same time, there are many complaints about poor communication from administration and clinical leadership: long phone wait times, unreturned calls, rude or defensive responses, and perceived unwillingness to address complaints. Discharge planning is another recurring problem — some families praised coordinated discharge planning and social work, while others reported rushed discharge explanations, premature discharges without family consent, unclear billing/payment options, and lack of follow-up.
Reputation, reviews, and transparency: Several reviewers allege manipulation of online ratings (staff-produced five-star reviews) and question the authenticity of positive reviews, which undermines trust. Privacy concerns were raised about invasive sign-in technology (face-recognition cameras and extensive personal data collection) and about shared rooms that compromise dignity for some residents.
Patterns and notable contradictions: The reviews display a clear pattern of high variance: strong, heartfelt praise for individual caregivers and certain departments (therapy, activities, housekeeping on some shifts) coexists with reports of neglect, safety events, and systemic communication failures. This suggests operational inconsistency—excellent outcomes are possible when care teams are well-staffed and engaged, but risks increase when staffing, leadership response, or processes falter.
Recommendations for prospective families and administrators: Based on the patterns in these reviews, prospective residents and families should perform targeted inquiries during tours—ask about staffing ratios by shift, frequency of physician rounds, medication administration safeguards (esp. insulin/IV), call-light response times, recent incidents or state survey results, discharge planning protocols, infection-control practices, and dining sample. Request to observe meal service and visit during different shifts. Administrators should prioritize transparent incident reporting, consistent staffing, improved communication protocols (phone responsiveness, follow-up after ER transfers), standardized infection control and medication administration training, and an audit of online review integrity. Addressing the variability in cleanliness, timely medication delivery, and timely therapy/referral processes would reduce many of the negative experiences described.
Bottom line: Friendship Manor appears capable of delivering excellent rehabilitation and compassionate bedside care in many cases—especially in therapy and activities—but there are repeated, serious reports of neglect, inconsistent hygiene, medication delays, communication failures, safety incidents, and administrative shortcomings. Experiences appear to be highly contingent on unit, shift, and individual staff; therefore careful, on-site evaluation and specific questioning are essential before placement, and systemic operational improvements are warranted to resolve the recurring high-severity issues documented by reviewers.
