Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive on rehabilitation and many aspects of day-to-day care. The facility receives consistently strong praise for its physical and occupational therapy programs — reviewers frequently call Cedar Crest one of the best SNF therapy teams they've encountered. In-house therapy with functional training (kitchen/bathroom), named therapists who helped patients regain independence, and measurable progress toward walking and functional goals are repeatedly cited. Multiple reviews explicitly say they would choose Cedar Crest again for rehab. These strengths form the core positive reputation of the facility.
Staff behavior and interpersonal care are another major positive theme. CNAs, many nurses, and numerous therapists are described as attentive, compassionate, pleasant, and responsive. Specific social workers and admissions staff are referenced as helpful, and families frequently mention warm greetings in halls, staff who check in regularly, and a strong sense of community where residents are engaged and sad to leave friends. Several reviews single out supportive front-desk reception and a welcoming lobby, and multiple comments note dog-friendly visits, church/music group visits, and varied activity programming that enhances resident quality of life.
Facility condition and amenities receive broad praise: reviewers note clean, well-maintained interiors and grounds, calming patios with plants and birds, large activity and dining spaces, and overall pleasant ambiance. The facility is described as well-managed with good equipment for therapy and accessible parking. Many families appreciate COVID-era policies, vaccinated staff, and creative visitation options (window/video/outdoor) used during restrictions.
Dining and food quality are frequently described positively: reviewers mention a good variety of meals, customization for preferences, homemade soups, prompt and nicely presented service, and an overall improvement in residents' appetite and weight for some. That said, dining consistency is a recurring caveat — several reports describe failure to observe dietary restrictions, unedible meals for particular patients, and an occasional decline in meal quality tied to external factors (e.g., government support). Thus, while many find the food excellent, there are enough negative reports to flag variability.
Despite these strengths, there are significant and recurring concerns that must be noted. Medication errors and inconsistent medication administration appear multiple times, sometimes serious enough that families filed complaints and transferred residents. There are also numerous accounts of short-staffing, delayed or ignored call lights, and neglectful incidents such as residents left in soiled diapers, development of blisters/bedsores, dehydration, and even falls. Some reviewers describe delayed pain medication or physicians’ insensitivity. A few reports allege clinical deterioration requiring hospital transfer, including pneumonia and MRSA, and some families reported hospice care delays or poor end-of-life coordination. These are not isolated single-word complaints but detailed narratives including escalations to state agencies and transfers to other facilities.
Management and administrative consistency show a pattern of polarization in the reviews. Many families praise social workers, admissions staff, and certain managers for clear communication and proactive care planning (names repeatedly praised include Katherine, Lenie, Havier, and others). Conversely, several reviews call out administrators for poor follow-through, unprofessional behavior (e.g., reportedly loud or authoritarian conduct), slow paperwork processing, difficulty reaching staff by phone, and billing or MediCal coordination issues. A few reviewers explicitly stated they filed formal complaints with the state (CA Dept of Public Health) and experienced prolonged investigations or unsatisfactory resolutions.
Quality variation by shift, unit, or staff member is another consistent theme. Numerous reviews celebrate specific caregivers and therapists by name for exceptional service, while other reviewers report very different experiences with other staff. This suggests inconsistency in staff training, retention, or scheduling — likely exacerbated by short-staffing in some reported cases. The mixed descriptions also extend to the physical plant: while many describe immaculate spaces and updated amenities, others report odors, outdated rooms, or smaller second-tier rooms with less favorable conditions.
In sum, Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is portrayed as a strong rehabilitation-focused facility with standout therapy services, many caring and competent staff, clean and attractive grounds, and an active community life. However, the facility also faces recurring operational challenges — notably medication management, staffing shortages, occasional neglectful episodes, variable administrative responsiveness, and inconsistent dining adherence to dietary needs. For prospective residents and families, the reviews suggest Cedar Crest can offer excellent rehabilitation outcomes and a quality daily environment when staffing and clinical oversight are functioning well, but families should actively monitor medication administration, cleanliness and hygiene care, and management responsiveness. Asking specific questions about staffing ratios, medication error prevention protocols, recent state inspection reports, and continuity of nursing coverage (especially nights and weekends) would help families weigh the strong therapy and community benefits against the documented risks and variability in care.
