Overall impression: The reviews for Sundance Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation are highly polarized, showing a stark contrast between numerous positive accounts and multiple severe negative allegations. Many reviewers praise the staff, activities, food, and recent management changes, while a sizeable set of reviews describe unsanitary conditions, neglect, possible abuse, and serious regulatory concerns. The mixture suggests wide variability in resident experience — possibly linked to different time periods, departments, shifts, or selective experiences — and highlights areas that warrant verification by families or regulators.
Care quality and safety: Multiple reviewers describe compassionate, attentive caregiving and rehabilitation-focused services; phrases such as "attentive and loving" staff, "1 on 1 care," and "residents' top priority" appear frequently. Conversely, other reviews assert grave failures: residents allegedly left hungry, beds unmade, hygiene neglected, patients not fed, unexplained bruises, aggressive drugging, and dementia patients being locked or restrained. Several accounts specifically allege doors being held shut, staff forced to lock residents in rooms, and orders by administration that could be illegal or unethical. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, indicate substantial safety and rights violations. There are also repeated reports of slow nursing response and inadequate staffing, which aggravate the risks described and contribute to inconsistent levels of care.
Staff behavior and management: Many family members compliment direct-care staff as hardworking, caring, and devoted; a number of reviews single out specific staff and activity leaders (for example, a named staffer praised for going above and beyond). At the same time, other reviewers report unprofessional staff behavior — gossiping about residents, bullying, lying, and poor hygiene practices (including hands in food). Management is another polarized theme: some reviewers express enthusiasm for new management, noting experience in healthcare, openness to feedback, and improvements underway; others accuse administration of lacking healthcare knowledge, mismanagement, and even issuing unlawful directives. The presence of both glowing comments about leadership and accusations of illegal or unethical administration suggests either a recent leadership change with improving conditions or highly inconsistent leadership practices across shifts/units.
Facilities and hygiene: Reviews conflict sharply on facility condition. Positive reports describe a clean, newly painted, tidy environment in some areas. Negative reports depict an outdated, crumbling building with black mold, filthy linens, bathrooms never cleaned, persistent urine smell, and putrefied food staining clothing. These disparities could reflect maintenance and cleanliness differences across wings or changes over time. Nonetheless, the frequency and severity of hygiene-related complaints (including smells and bedding issues) are concerning because they directly impact resident dignity and infection control.
Dining and nutrition: Dining receives both praise and criticism. Several reviewers commend a thoughtful, seasonal menu, attentive dietary staff, and nutritious meals with variety and snacks. In contrast, other reviewers report cold meals, insufficient portions, raw or burnt food, canned fruit and hard-boiled eggs for breakfast, and even claims of improper food handling. This split again points to inconsistency: some units or shifts may be providing high-quality food service while others fail to meet basic standards.
Activities and transportation: Activity programming is one of the stronger consistent positives: multiple reviewers highlight an "amazing activity program," trips, resident involvement, and staff members who are dedicated to engagement. Transportation offerings such as a shuttle to doctors and proximity to a park are also cited positively. However, transportation reliability is questioned in several reviews — notably, refusal to pick up or return residents (examples include a resident stranded after an outing and a power chair issue in cold weather) — which raises concerns about operational reliability and resident safety during transit.
Communication and family relations: Communication emerges as another mixed area. Many reviewers praise transparency, kindness, and communication about valuables, while others report poor or unresponsive social service staff, long waits for responses, and unanswered phone calls. When communication breaks down, families describe feeling shut out and alarmed, particularly when combined with safety or hygiene concerns.
Regulatory and legal concerns: Some reviews call for state intervention and urge that the facility be shut down, citing regulatory noncompliance, illegal orders, and health department-level issues. Allegations of holding residents for extra money, forcing staff to lock doors, and directives that potentially contravene law are serious and repeated by multiple reviewers. These claims, if verified, would necessitate prompt investigation by licensing and oversight bodies.
Patterns and interpretation: The reviews present a clear pattern of inconsistency. Many residents and families describe very positive experiences — caring staff, good food, strong activities, and improvements under new leadership — while others report neglect, abuse, and deplorable environmental conditions. Possible explanations consistent with the reviews include: 1) changes over time (some positives may reflect recent improvements under new management while negatives refer to prior conditions), 2) variability between units or shifts (some wings or staff teams may be well-run while others are not), or 3) differing expectations and experiences among reviewers. Regardless of cause, the volume and severity of negative allegations (particularly those alleging abuse, illegal behavior, or major hygiene failures) are notable and should not be dismissed.
Conclusion and considerations: Based on the reviews, Sundance has demonstrable strengths — committed direct-care staff, an active engagement program, and praise for dietary and rehabilitative services in many accounts — but also serious and recurring negative reports that involve resident safety, sanitation, and possible unlawful practices. Families and referral sources should weigh both sets of information, prioritize in-person visits focused on cleanliness, staffing patterns, meal service, and observation of resident well-being, and request the facility's most recent state inspection and staffing reports. Allegations of abuse, illegal locking, or systemic neglect should be reported to the state long-term care ombudsman and licensing authority for investigation. The mixed reviews suggest potential for good care under certain conditions or leadership, but also warning signs that require direct verification and, where necessary, regulatory follow-up.
