The reviews present a highly mixed and polarized picture of Boulder Post Acute, with clear and repeated praise for individual staff members and specific services contrasted sharply against serious and recurring operational, safety, hygiene, and management complaints.
Care quality: Opinions about the direct care residents receive are divided. Multiple reviewers emphasize that caregivers, CNAs, and some medical staff are compassionate, competent and even lifesaving — keeping guardians informed, providing skilled physical rehabilitation, and delivering attentive, trusting care. Conversely, other reviewers describe serious neglect: residents reportedly bathed only once a week, left in wet diapers, receiving little or no assistance with oral hygiene, and in some accounts subjected to mistreatment or abuse. This creates a pattern in which care quality appears inconsistent: some residents receive excellent, attentive care while others experience neglect or unsafe conditions.
Staffing and staff conduct: Staff are frequently described as friendly, hardworking and knowledgeable, and several reviews single out CNAs and a receptionist (Louise) as major positives. There are also multiple reports of severe understaffing — particularly on weekends and overnight shifts — which reviewers link to supervision gaps and increased risk (including a reported fall). Staff misconduct and privacy violations are also reported (e.g., clothing confiscation, privacy invasion), and several reviews note high turnover as professionals leave for better work. One set of comments praises a new management team that purportedly cares for employees, but simultaneous reports of unresponsive administration suggest inconsistent leadership and communication.
Facility condition and safety: Numerous reviews describe the facility as old, deteriorated and dirty, citing cockroach sightings and generally unsanitary conditions. Safety issues are emphasized: absence of bed monitors or rails is noted as a direct safety risk, and at least one reviewer reported a fall. The combination of physical deterioration, hygiene problems, and understaffing raises significant concerns about resident safety and infection control.
Population mix and activities: Several reviewers voice concern that the facility houses a high proportion of long‑term psychiatric patients, sometimes characterizing the facility as an “arm of the State Hospital.” These placements are described as contributing to disturbances, privacy problems for roommates, and limited social life. A recurrent complaint is the lack of activities and little to no visiting or social programming, which compounds isolation for many residents.
Dining and housekeeping: Comments on food are mixed. Some reviewers praise “excellent,” homemade meals and note that lunches are delicious and that meal offerings have been upgraded. Others find the food horrible. Housekeeping reviews trend negative, with reports of dirty rooms and common areas, alongside a few notes that interiors have been repainted — suggesting limited cosmetic improvements but ongoing cleanliness issues.
Management, finances and communication: Several reviewers raise serious concerns about administration and financial handling, including an administrator who controls residents’ funds or restricts cash withdrawals and instances of billing disputes or owed money. Communication from management is described as poor or unresponsive by multiple reviewers, while a minority praise management for responsiveness and support to staff. This discrepancy suggests varying experiences depending on timing, specific staff, or individual circumstances.
Notable patterns and overall impression: The reviews indicate deep inconsistency across nearly every domain: while numerous staff members are praised for compassion and competence, systemic problems (cleanliness, staffing, safety, psychiatric placements, administration and financial management) recur often and are described in strong terms. Some reviewers report clear improvements (meal upgrades, repainting, new management), but many serious allegations — including neglect, abuse, safety lapses and unsanitary conditions — remain and are repeated by different commenters. The presence of both glowing and damning accounts suggests that experiences may vary widely by unit, shift, resident needs, or over time.
Recommendations for prospective families or regulators: Based on the reviews, anyone considering Boulder Post Acute should (1) inquire specifically about staffing levels on weekends and overnight, (2) ask about safety measures (bed rails, monitors, fall protocols), (3) inspect cleanliness and pest control practices in person, (4) clarify the facility’s admission policy regarding psychiatric long‑term placements and how behavioral issues are managed, (5) review activity schedules and visitation policies, and (6) get detailed information on financial controls, billing practices, and grievance procedures. Given the serious nature of several complaints, regulatory follow‑up or inspection would be warranted to verify hygiene, staffing and safety compliance.
In sum, Boulder Post Acute appears to have dedicated and caring individuals among its staff and some areas of good clinical care, but it also has repeated and serious complaints about facility condition, safety, hygiene, psychiatric placement practices, understaffing, and administrative/financial issues. These mixed signals merit careful due diligence and, if concerns are confirmed, corrective action to ensure consistent, safe, and respectful care for all residents.
