Overall sentiment across these reviews is polarized but leans strongly negative about Riverdale Post Acute’s facility condition, management, and some aspects of care, while consistently noting that many frontline caregivers are compassionate and capable. The most common praise is for individual staff members — CNAs, nurses, and some leadership — who are described as kind, helpful, and attentive, particularly in moments of crisis (for example, organizing transportation for evacuated residents and supporting Marshall Fire survivors). Several reviewers singled out exceptional teamwork and leadership in specific situations, and multiple families expressed gratitude for end-of-life care and the warmth shown by direct-care staff. Memory-care and rehab-related staff received positive comments in some accounts, and a few reviewers said residents appeared happy and well cared for during visits.
However, the dominant concerns center on facility maintenance, cleanliness, communication, and management practices. Multiple reviewers described the exterior and entry areas as poorly maintained — trash along walkways, standing dead trees, stained concrete, and a cluttered foyer — contributing to an overall impression that the building is deteriorating and depressing. Inside, reviewers reported sanitation issues including spiders, dirt, and at least one allegation of urine on a resident. Practical shortcomings were noted as well: very small rehab gym, limited or no air conditioning, missing in-room amenities such as phones, bedside tables, or closet doors, and doors that do not close properly. These physical and cleanliness issues raise safety and quality-of-life concerns for residents.
Care quality and treatment of residents and staff are recurring and serious themes. While some reviewers praised individual caregivers, others reported neglectful care, residents appearing unwell or 'zombie-like', and direct warnings from families not to send relatives there. Several accounts allege poor treatment of employees (CNAs and nurses), including poor managerial support and anti-mask sentiment among some staff. Staffing-treatment issues are important because they affect morale and can translate into inconsistent resident care. These mixed reports suggest variability in the resident experience that may hinge on which caregivers are on duty and how management supports staff.
Communication and administrative transparency are additional weak points in the reviews. Multiple people reported phones not being answered, long wait times for information, and delayed or insufficient notifications about medical events, including late notice of deaths. Some reviewers felt the hospital provided more timely and complete information than the facility. Administrative criticisms go beyond communication: reviewers used strong language to describe management as negative, greedy, or irresponsible. Serious allegations include COVID-19 misreporting, death misclassification, possible deception by management, and even claims of criminal behavior linked to financial motives and multiple facility name changes. These are severe accusations and, if true, would indicate systemic problems; however, they are allegations reported by reviewers and would require verification through official records and inspections.
Patterns to note: (1) A clear split between praise for direct-care staff and criticism of facility-level issues (maintenance, cleanliness, management). (2) Recurrent operational deficiencies (communication, unanswered phones, late notifications) that materially affect families’ ability to get timely information. (3) Safety and quality concerns tied to alleged neglect and unsanitary conditions, counterbalanced by individual instances of good care, especially during emergencies. (4) Some reviewers emphasize strong, compassionate responses during crises (evacuations, Marshall Fire), indicating pockets of effective leadership and teamwork.
For prospective families or referral sources, the reviews recommend caution and targeted investigation. Visit in person (including the exterior and common areas), ask to meet shift supervisors and direct-care staff, request the most recent inspection/deficiency reports and staffing ratios, clarify communication protocols (who to call, how death or incident notifications are handled), and inquire about infection reporting, staff turnover, training, and policies about family visits and leaving the facility. When possible, speak with current family members about their recent experiences and confirm any claims about name changes, reported incidents, or alleged misreporting through public records (state health inspection reports, complaints, and licensing actions). The reviews suggest that while you may find compassionate and hardworking caregivers, there are significant and repeated concerns about maintenance, cleanliness, administrative transparency, and potentially serious operational or ethical issues that warrant careful, documented scrutiny before making placement decisions.
