The reviews present a mixed but strongly polarized picture of Watrous Nursing Center. A significant portion of reviewers praise the staff, describing them as caring, team-oriented, professional, and attentive. Multiple summaries emphasize that residents receive very personal, high-quality care, and that staff provide comfort and handle residents well. The center is frequently recommended for both short-term and long-term stays. Positive comments also highlight a homelike atmosphere, well-kept resident rooms, good meals, and engaging activities that lead to positive family visits.
However, these positive accounts are counterbalanced by several severe negative reports that raise safety and hygiene concerns. Some reviewers describe the facility as "disgusting," noting sticky floors and cats roaming hallways. There are multiple mentions of unattended patients and alleged neglect; one summary explicitly alleges a fatality due to neglect. Other reviewers flagged privacy issues, such as residents dressing with doors open, which compounds concerns about supervision and dignity. These are serious allegations that directly contradict the accounts of high-quality, attentive care and indicate potential inconsistency in standards or in enforcement of policy.
Facility condition and amenities are also described in contrasting ways. Supporters report that rooms are well kept and the environment feels homelike. At the same time, others emphasize that the building is not new or recently redecorated and lacks modern "bells and whistles," suggesting a more modest, utilitarian facility rather than an upscale option. The presence of roaming animals and sticky floors, if accurate, point to lapses in housekeeping and environmental controls that would be especially important to verify for people with mobility or infection-risk concerns.
Dining and programming receive mostly favorable mentions: reviewers cite good meals, engaging games and activities, and attentive staff during family visits. These positive aspects suggest that, when operations are functioning smoothly, residents can have meaningful daily engagement and satisfactory nutrition. The discrepancy between positive programming/dining notes and the more alarming reports of neglect suggests variability in day-to-day performance or in the experiences of different residents/units.
Taken together, the dominant theme is one of starkly mixed experiences. Many reviewers praise the staff and core caregiving, while others report severe problems with cleanliness, supervision, and even alleged fatal outcomes. This pattern suggests inconsistencies—either over time, between different units or shifts, or between different residents' expectations and needs. Because some of the negative reports involve allegations of neglect and a fatality, they should be treated as serious and warrant direct verification.
For prospective residents and families, these reviews recommend a careful, investigative approach: tour the facility multiple times (including meal and activity periods), ask about staffing levels and supervision practices, inquire about housekeeping policies and any history of incidents or regulatory citations, verify whether animals are allowed and under what controls, and speak directly with current families about recent experiences. The facility may be a strong option for those prioritizing personal, compassionate staff and a homelike environment, but the serious negative reports mean prospective decision-makers should do due diligence to confirm current conditions and safety practices before committing.
