Overall sentiment across the reviews of San Francisco Health Care and Rehab Inc. is markedly mixed, with a strong cluster of very positive reports centered on rehabilitation, therapy outcomes, and specific staff members contrasted with a set of serious negative allegations concerning neglect, pests, and possible administrative malfeasance. Many reviewers describe exceptional rehabilitative care: physical and occupational therapy teams receive repeated high praise (several reviewers singled out therapists by name, e.g., Anthony, Nadya, Monica, Jen) and credit the therapy program with dramatic recoveries including regained mobility, walking and stair-climbing. These positive outcomes are reinforced by frequent commendations of nurses, CNAs, social workers and front-line staff who are described as caring, attentive and proactive. Multiple accounts emphasize 24-hour nursing, helpful discharge planning, multilingual staff, private spacious rooms with private bathrooms, and a clean, hospital-like environment — features that some families say make this facility preferable to larger corporate-run nursing homes.
At the same time, a substantial number of reviews raise troubling concerns about safety, hygiene, staffing consistency and administration. Several reports are severe: allegations of rough handling or aggressive CNAs, residents left screaming for long periods, soiled diapers and poor incontinence care resulting in UTIs, and instances where patients were described as overly sedated. Multiple reviewers report pest problems (cockroaches, mice and rats), offensive odors, torn linens and poor maintenance in parts of the facility — issues that conflict with other reviewers' statements about cleanliness. There are also repeated complaints about slow or inconsistent response times to call lights and assistance requests, plus instances of inattentive or rude reception/front-desk behavior. These negative experiences appear to vary by shift and by individual staff members, suggesting variability in training, supervision or staffing levels.
Dining and amenities draw mixed feedback. Some reviewers praise diverse, high-quality meals and note accommodating service (even allowing pizza on visits), while others describe the food as horrible or inadequate. Facility infrastructure is another divided theme: several reviewers appreciate the bright environment and private rooms, whereas many others call out an aging building that needs renovation — slow elevators, torn drapes, and ongoing maintenance work are frequently mentioned. Several reviews observe that the facility is family-owned and that leadership is hands-on and responsive; other reviews, however, allege suspicious administrative behavior, fraud or billing irregularities, removal of COVID vaccination information from listings, and even claims that reviews have been manipulated. These allegations include worries about privacy (staff asking intrusive questions about insurance and bank accounts) and references to licensing board involvement in some complaints. Because such claims are serious, they merit verification through official channels.
Patterns in staff performance and continuity are notable. Numerous reviewers provide very specific praise for named nurses, CNAs and administrators (Min Q, David, Cindy, Wanda, Erica, Maiko, Paul, Karla, Jeanie, Stan Stukov, Bridget) and describe staff who go above and beyond, are profoundly compassionate, and facilitate rapid recoveries. Yet other reviewers describe inconsistent or outright neglectful care from other staff — leaving residents unsupervised, allowing fights, or providing minimal attention. This split suggests variability across shifts or turnover-related training gaps; it may also reflect different expectations for long-term care versus short-term rehabilitation stays. Several reviews praise social workers and discharge planning, while a few reports say admissions were handled well but care inside the facility declined.
Safety and regulatory concerns are a recurrent and serious theme. Multiple reviewers reported incidents where residents cried out for help with little response, or where living conditions included pests and smells. There are allegations of billing and privacy improprieties and even mention of licensing board complaints, which raise flags that prospective residents and families should investigate. Conversely, many reviewers assert that the facility is a safe, professional, and effective rehabilitation center. Given this polarization, prospective residents should verify current inspection reports, infection-control measures, pest-control records, staffing ratios, and any state licensing complaints before making decisions.
Recommendations based on these reviews: (1) Tour the facility in person and observe multiple shifts if possible (watch for staffing levels, response to call lights, odors, and pest signs); (2) Ask for references from recent families who had similar care needs (rehab vs long-term vs hospice); (3) Request documentation on pest control, infection control, staffing ratios, and any state inspection or complaint history; (4) Clarify billing, privacy, and admissions procedures in writing and ask about safeguards for sensitive information; (5) Confirm availability of PT/OT services and continuity of assigned therapists; and (6) If hospice-level care is needed, explicitly question facility suitability and request examples of hospice management. In sum, reviews indicate San Francisco Health Care and Rehab Inc. can deliver excellent, even remarkable, rehabilitation and compassionate care for many residents — particularly when specific staff are present — but there are recurring, serious negative reports (including safety, hygiene, and administrative concerns) that make careful vetting essential before admission.
