Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized around two recurring themes: consistently high praise for frontline caregivers and troubling concerns about management, safety, and facility maintenance. Across numerous reviews, nurses, CNAs, therapists and other direct-care staff receive repeated commendations for compassion, attentiveness, personalized care, teamwork, and going above and beyond. Many families describe a warm, family-like atmosphere in direct interactions — residents are often known by name, receive individualized attention, and therapy/rehabilitation services and hospice care are highlighted as strengths. Several reviewers specifically call out an effective therapy department, recovery-focused programming, wheelchair-accessible activities, and improvements in cleanliness and environment in recent months. These positive experiences form the backbone of why some families remain confident in the facility’s day-to-day caregiving despite other problems.
Counterbalancing those positives are persistent and serious concerns tied to administration, maintenance, and clinical oversight. Multiple reviews describe an administrative staff that is difficult to reach, slow or unresponsive to complaints, and poor at communicating with families (long hold times and no voicemail were mentioned). There are repeated allegations of ownership/management instability — sales to outside agencies, corporate takeovers, repeated facility name changes, and a perception that changes were made in reaction to bad reviews rather than to address root causes. Reviewers report billing problems and confusion around Medicaid/Social Security, as well as allegations of unpaid wages and a toxic corporate atmosphere. These governance issues appear to undermine trust and create operational gaps that affect resident care.
Significant safety and clinical concerns appear in several reviews and should be treated as red flags. Families report medication-management failures (medications withheld without notifying family), abrupt medication changes that reportedly led to behavioral crises and ambulance transports, and cases where the facility allegedly refused to readmit a resident after hospital transfer. Some reviewers explicitly state that the facility is inappropriate or unsafe for residents with dementia or serious mental-health needs. Additionally, there are disturbing reports about repeated demands for personal identification and documentation that raised privacy and identity-theft concerns for families. Taken together, these items suggest inconsistent clinical oversight and weak processes for family notification, medication reconciliation, and data/privacy protection.
Facility condition and maintenance are another major area of concern. Several reviewers describe dirty rooms, sticky floors, mold, ceiling leaks, recurrent plumbing or roofing issues, hard-to-open doors, and persistent loud mechanical noises (high-pitched cooling system squeals and alarms). These problems are framed as long-standing and subject to repeated temporary fixes rather than permanent repairs. While some visitors and families note recent improvements in cleanliness and the addition of a new memory-care unit, other accounts suggest maintenance and exterior upkeep remain neglected. Noise pollution from building systems was repeatedly cited as creating discomfort and frustration for residents.
Dining and nonclinical services receive mixed reviews. Some families praise attentive dining staff and personalized meal service; others harshly criticize food quality (one reviewer compared it unfavorably to prison food) and reported that the cook had been fired. Staffing levels and the use of agency nurses were also criticized in several reviews — agency staff were described as providing minimal care compared with regular employees. However, even in contexts of staffing shortages or management turnover, direct-care staff are consistently singled out for kindness and professionalism.
A notable pattern is the dichotomy between the commitment of direct-care workers and the perceived failings of leadership and corporate oversight. Many reviewers explicitly state that the caregivers themselves are a major positive factor and the reason they trust or recommend the facility, while simultaneously warning prospective families about administration, billing, privacy, maintenance, and clinical-safety issues. Several reviews mention recent improvements and managerial responsiveness in specific cases, indicating that some corrective actions have been made, but other reviews caution that problems re-emerge or that improvements may be uneven across units.
Bottom line: Falcon Heights Health and Rehabilitation appears to provide strong, compassionate frontline care and good therapy/hospice services according to many families and visitors. However, serious and recurring concerns about administrative responsiveness, medication handling, privacy, billing, facility maintenance, noise, and consistent clinical supervision—particularly for residents with dementia or behavioral health needs—warrant caution. If considering this facility, families should (1) verify current management and ownership status, (2) ask for written policies and communication protocols for medication changes and hospital transfers, (3) inspect living areas for maintenance and noise issues in person, and (4) check recent inspection reports and follow up on how the facility addressed previous complaints. The mixed but sharply polarized reviews suggest that experiences can vary greatly depending on unit, time period, and which staff are on duty, so in-person visits and direct, documented communications are essential.
