Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers express high satisfaction with the facility’s staff, cleanliness, and services, while an equally serious set of reviews raises alarm about safety, inconsistent care, and possible neglect. Positive comments emphasize compassionate, attentive employees described as "angels," strong rehabilitation services, and a clean, well-maintained environment with amenities. Negative comments include specific, severe clinical concerns (wound deterioration, risk of amputation, botched IV removal, dehydration/UTI risk) and service failures that could threaten resident safety.
Care quality and clinical safety: Reviews reveal two very different experiences. Many families commend the skilled nursing and rehab teams, reporting timely and thorough care, good supervision, and successful rehabilitation outcomes that made the facility a first choice for skilled nursing/rehab. Conversely, other reviewers report alarming clinical lapses: inadequate hydration leading to UTI risk, severe pressure or ankle wounds that worsened under facility care, and an instance of a nurse allegedly mishandling IV removal with uncontrolled bleeding. These specific safety incidents suggest inconsistency in clinical practice and potential gaps in wound care, infection control, and standard nursing competencies that prospective families should probe further.
Staff and management: Staff-related comments are strongly divided. Numerous reviews praise friendly, respectful, and family-focused staff across departments — from front-office personnel to activities and nursing — and describe administrators as dedicated and supportive. However, an equally significant subset of reviews reports poor staff quality, cliquey nursing behavior, and a lack of advocacy when families raised concerns. There are reports of staff who were initially helpful but became unresponsive after a resident chose to leave against medical advice, and instances of no callbacks or long response times when nurses were needed. These patterns point to variability in staff training, communication practices, and potentially staffing levels or management oversight.
Facility, amenities, and environment: The facility receives consistent praise for cleanliness, lack of odors, and available amenities. Reviewers note beauty services (hair and manicure), a PT room, multiple wings, a patio, and an outdoor barbecue area; many found the facility impressive on tours. At the same time, it's described as a large, older building that has had a facelift — which may explain good common-area upkeep while individual rooms or systems (like phone service) show shortcomings. A recurring operational complaint is the absence of in-room phone lines, which reviewers say contributes to resident isolation and difficulty contacting staff promptly.
Activities and quality of life: Activity programming is cited as a strength, with staff and organized events receiving positive mention. Outdoor areas and BBQs were specifically called out as valuable for resident quality of life. Families also appreciated the facility making visiting easy during COVID and generally encouraging visits, which helped maintain family involvement.
Communication and responsiveness: Multiple reviews highlight serious communication issues: no in-room phones, long waits to reach nurses, and lack of callbacks. These deficiencies amplify other clinical and safety concerns because delayed reporting of changes in condition can worsen outcomes. Positive reviews note good follow-through and attentive listening by some staff, indicating that communication strengths exist but are inconsistently applied across the facility or shifts.
Notable patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The most prominent pattern is sharp inconsistency — where some residents receive exemplary, family-centered care while others report dangerous lapses. The nature and severity of negative reports (wounds worsening, alleged neglect, and a botched IV removal) are significant and warrant careful vetting. Prospective residents and family members should tour the facility (many reviewers found tours informative), ask detailed questions about wound care protocols, staffing ratios, infection-control practices, policies for IV management, hydration monitoring, and how the facility handles complaints and family advocacy. Also inquire about communication systems (in-room phone availability or alternatives), nurse call response times, staff turnover, and supervision across shifts. If possible, seek recent references and review incident reports or state inspection records to confirm whether reported problems were isolated or indicate systemic issues.
Bottom line: Redding Post Acute appears to offer strong rehabilitation services, a clean campus, and a team of compassionate staff in many cases, with amenities that support resident quality of life. However, multiple reviewers report serious lapses in clinical care, communication, and resident advocacy that raise safety concerns. The facility may provide excellent care for some residents while failing others; families should perform careful, specific due diligence and ask targeted questions about the clinical and communication processes before making decisions.
