The reviews for Red Cliffs Post Acute are highly polarized, showing two distinct and competing narratives. Many reviewers praise the staff, clinical care, and leadership, describing compassionate, attentive, and professional teams who provide personalized care and create a welcoming, family-like atmosphere. Several comments specifically commend the CNAs, nursing staff, and named individuals (for example Drew and the nursing director) for improving residents’ wellbeing and alleviating family concerns. Multiple reviewers report a clean facility, a comfortable and safe environment, and a good place to both work and place loved ones. There are also comments noting organizational improvements over time, increased cleanliness, and a leadership commitment to continual improvement.
Counterbalancing these positive accounts are serious and repeated negative reports about care quality, staffing, safety, and infection control. Several reviewers allege understaffing and a lack of responsiveness that resulted in residents being neglected — not fed, not showered or changed, sitting in soiled urine or feces, and having needs ignored. These are among the most severe claims and at least one review explicitly mentions a resident death in the context of poor care. Related to basic hygiene and infection control, some reviewers describe failures such as staff not washing or sanitizing hands, and persistent urine odors throughout the building and at the front entrance. Dining problems are also raised: meals described as late and served cold.
Safety and behavioral concerns appear in multiple summaries as well. Some reviewers report seeing patients passing around drugs or pills and describe mentally unstable or threatening residents. At least one reviewer characterizes the experience as a "horror show" and says administration did not respond effectively to threatening behavior. These accounts raise questions about security, supervision, and the facility’s ability to manage behavioral health and contraband. They stand in stark contrast to other reviewers who felt the environment was comfortable and safe.
Facility condition comments are mixed. Several reviewers explicitly say the building is very clean and welcoming, while others say rooms need updating and call the facility a "dump." This suggests inconsistent maintenance or differing expectations among reviewers. Administrative and procedural notes include praise for leadership that is responsive and improvement-focused, alongside an annoyance with an automated check-in system reported by some visitors. Staff training and orientation received positive mention from at least one review describing a thorough job orientation.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with strengths in staff compassion, individualized clinical care, and committed leadership, but also with acute and alarming reports of neglect, inadequate staffing, infection-control lapses, odor problems, and safety incidents. The presence of both glowing and very negative reviews suggests either variation across shifts/units or changes over time in quality and management. Prospective residents and families should investigate recent incident history, staffing levels and ratios, infection-control policies, behavioral health management, and conduct an in-person visit (including meal times and a tour of rooms and common areas) to assess consistency. Asking about specific improvements implemented by leadership and following up on any allegations or adverse incidents would be prudent given the seriousness of some reviews.
