Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with many family members and patients praising individual staff members and the facility’s rehabilitation strengths, while a subset of reviews raise serious concerns about safety, consistency, and management. Positive reports commonly highlight friendly, compassionate nursing assistants and nurses, effective physical therapy programs, attentive social work and case management, and a clean, welcoming physical environment. Several reviewers described accelerated recovery, respectful treatment of elders (including centenarians), and strong, hands-on clinical work such as wound care and diabetes management. The facility’s admissions and visitor processes are frequently described as warm and efficient, and common spaces and activities are noted as inviting and supportive for resident socialization.
Staffing and staff performance are recurring themes with polarized experiences. Many reviews single out day-shift nurses, CNAs, and named staff (for example Loree, Ariel, Zurrah, Ian, Ayeleena, Natalie, Inga) as caring, professional, and communicative. Those accounts credit the team with keeping families informed, responding to requests, and delivering compassionate bedside care. Conversely, multiple reviews describe significant variability by shift: night staff are repeatedly criticized as unresponsive or poor, and several families report slow or absent responses to call buttons. Understaffing and an overburdened system are commonly mentioned as contributors to this inconsistency. Reports of staff spending time on personal phones, uneven supervision, and favoritism further feed perceptions of unreliable care.
Clinical quality shows strengths and worrying gaps. On the positive side, many patients received daily physical therapy, effective wound care, and successful post-acute recoveries (notably hip-replacement rehab). The facility appears to have respiratory resources in some cases — reviewers note registered respiratory therapists and successful mechanical ventilation rehabilitation in at least one account. However, several grave clinical failures are also described: delayed or denied medical attention, occurrences of bedsores from inadequate turning and cleaning, missing medications and equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, gait belts), delayed hospital transports, and reports of pneumonia, sepsis, and death that families attribute to neglect or poor oversight. There are mixed reports on ventilator and respiratory weaning capability: while some reviews attest to competent respiratory care, others strongly warn that the facility is not properly equipped to wean ventilated patients or provide consistent respiratory rehabilitation (including significant gaps in speech therapy availability).
Safety, supervision, and management accountability emerge as key concerns. Multiple reviewers describe alarming neglect scenarios — patients left alone, found in distress (fetal position), or lacking oxygen and pain management — and at least one review mentions an open investigation. Families report broken trust with leadership, citing administrators who did not follow through, head-of-nursing issues, poor communication, and slow or absent doctor responsiveness. Operational problems such as computers not working, reliance on paper charting, disorganized supply desks, favoritism, harassment, and long staff overtime were also raised. These systemic issues appear linked to some of the more severe clinical lapses and to families’ strongest negative impressions.
Facility and comfort-level observations are mostly positive but not uniform. Many reviewers describe a clean, well-maintained building with pleasant decor, quiet atmosphere, and a safe-feeling environment. The recreation room, puzzles, and social events are appreciated. At the same time, some reviews call out an older building with noisy or inadequate air conditioning, initial uncleanliness of beds in isolated incidents, shared rooms, parking shortages, and staff parking in visitor spaces. Dining receives lukewarm feedback: meals are described as bland or not meeting dietary restrictions for some residents, though snacks and occasional treats are noted.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: Coastal View appears to deliver effective post-acute rehabilitation and compassionate care frequently, especially during day shifts and when staffing levels are adequate. However, the facility shows a notable pattern of inconsistency — both in clinical services and in responsiveness between shifts — and several reviews report serious safety and management concerns. Prospective families should weigh the positive experiences of skilled nursing, physical therapy, wound care, and some respiratory capabilities against the credible reports of neglect, delayed medical attention, missing equipment, and administrative failures. If considering Coastal View, ask direct questions about night-shift staffing and supervision, call-bell response times, respiratory therapy availability (including speech therapy), wound-care protocols, medication and equipment handling, and the facility’s procedures for handling deteriorations and hospital transfers. Also confirm parking arrangements and dietary accommodations. Finally, monitor care closely during the initial days and maintain regular communication with named staff and case management to reduce the chance of overlooked needs.
