The reviews of Matulaitis Nursing Home are polarized, with strong praise from some families and serious criticisms from others. Positive comments focus on compassionate, experienced staff who provide tailored, dignified care. Several reviewers emphasized warm, respectful treatment, professionalism, patience, and hospice-level compassion. The facility is described by some as having a mission-driven culture, run by nuns who are dedicated to long-term care. Admissions procedures and initial placement are highlighted positively in multiple reviews — an admissions counselor and head nurse reportedly coordinated placements effectively. During COVID, the facility implemented video chat capabilities, which was explicitly noted as a helpful communication tool.
However, a significant portion of reviews raise major clinical and safety concerns. Several accounts describe minimal or substandard clinical attention, slow responses to changing medical needs, poor monitoring, and incidents that necessitated hospital transfers. The most serious singular incident described involves catheter insertion leading to profuse bleeding and subsequent hospitalization — an event that underlines reported problems with clinical competence and emergency responsiveness. Multiple reviewers reported inadequate pain management and failures to document incidents, creating anxieties about continuity and accountability of care. Short staffing and rude or inattentive staff were also repeatedly mentioned and are linked in the reviews to decreased care quality.
Rehabilitation and therapy experiences are mixed. Some reviewers praised the rehab program and hardworking therapy staff, calling the facility a great place for rehab. Conversely, others described rehab and physical therapy as ineffective or a "joke," suggesting inconsistency in therapy quality or resourcing. This split suggests variability across care teams, shifts, or individual therapists rather than a universally strong or universally poor rehab service.
Interactions with staff and the culture of care also split along similar lines. Many family members expressed deep appreciation for specific nurses and aides who were supportive of both residents and families, even accommodating family pets like a dog named Rosie. Several reviewers offered enthusiastic endorsements, calling it the best home for the elderly and praising individual caregivers. At the same time, other families experienced rude behavior or neglect, reinforcing a pattern of uneven resident experience dependent on the day, unit, or personnel present.
Operationally, reviewers noted strengths in admissions coordination and compassionate end-of-life care. Hospice services and staff compassion in those settings received positive attention. Dining was mentioned only briefly and described as adequate by at least one reviewer. The religious character of the facility was cited as a positive for those who valued mission-driven care.
Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with pockets of excellent, mission-minded caregiving and meaningful family support, but also with concerning lapses in clinical care, safety monitoring, documentation, and staffing consistency that have in some cases led to serious adverse outcomes. The most common themes are variability in care quality and reliability: families either report deeply satisfying, dignified care or serious, dangerous failings. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the strong positive reports and the significant negative incidents, ask specific questions about clinical staffing, monitoring practices, incident reporting, and rehab programming, and seek to observe care during different shifts before making placement decisions.
