Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive about frontline caregiving and the physical environment, while expressing clear concerns about communication, management, and billing practices. Many reviewers consistently praise the direct care staff: words used include compassionate, caring, nice, welcoming, and excellent. Several reviews specifically singled out the rehab team as great and noted that staffing ratios felt adequate. Multiple reviewers described the facility itself as clean, airy, and beautiful, and they appreciated the daily activities program. On these fronts—hands-on caregiver attention, cleanliness, and rehabilitative services—Country Crest Post-Acute receives strong, repeated commendations and several reviewers explicitly stated they would recommend the facility.
However, a notable portion of feedback highlights significant operational and management problems. Several reviewers reported difficulties with communication and phone access: examples include long waits, calls routed through multiple extensions, calls ending up on recordings, and an overall impression of outdated or inadequate technology. These communication failures affect families' ability to reach residents or staff and contribute to frustration and anxiety. Separately, at least one reviewer described the operation as corporate-run and money-focused, citing a specific fee amount ($6,000) and reporting that calls were not returned. That review also reported removing a resident after two weeks, indicating a very negative personal outcome.
There are also concerning reports about inconsistencies in resident condition and expectations. One review noted that the facility had promised a community of high-functioning residents but instead described residents as 'walking zombies,' suggesting a mismatch between marketing/expectations and on-the-ground reality. A related worry is management responsiveness; while many frontline staff were praised, some reviewers accused management of failing to tend to residents in critical moments. This creates a pattern where direct caregivers are seen as doing well, yet systemic or supervisory issues undermine trust for some families.
In practical terms, the strongest and most consistent positives are the quality of day-to-day caregiving, cleanliness of the facility, an appealing physical environment, and an active rehab/activities program. The most recurrent negatives are communication breakdowns (phone access, technology), perceptions of corporate or money-driven priorities, specific billing/fee concerns, uneven management oversight, and at least one reported early removal of a resident due to dissatisfaction. Experiences appear to vary considerably by reviewer: several offer high recommendations based on staff and facility quality, while others report serious problems that led to removal or distrust.
Recommendation for prospective families: weigh the strengths in hands-on care, cleanliness, and rehabilitation against the reported issues in management and communication. If considering the facility, ask specific, documented questions about billing and fees, request written details about resident mix and levels of care offered, and test phone and communication protocols (e.g., how after-hours calls are handled and who returns messages). Also consider asking to speak directly with nursing leadership about responsiveness in emergencies. These steps can help you validate the positive attributes many reviewers experienced while guarding against the operational and management concerns raised by others.
