The reviews for Aidan Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center are highly polarized, producing a mixed but concentrated set of themes. Across many summaries the strongest, most consistent positive signal is around therapy and rehab services: multiple reviewers praised physical and occupational therapy staff (with Thomas and Alexiana named specifically), described successful rehab outcomes, and credited the facility with helping residents return home. Housekeeping and laundry teams also receive consistent praise in many reviews, and several families note engaging activities, therapy dogs, and an open-door family involvement policy that support social and emotional wellbeing. Numerous reviewers express deep appreciation for particular nurses, CNAs, administrators, or directors who treated residents with respect and attention, and a subset of reviews contains strong endorsements calling the facility one of the best rehab options in the area.
Contrasting sharply with those positives are frequent and serious negative reports. A recurrent complaint concerns inconsistent nursing care by shift: daytime therapy and some day-shift nurses/CNAs are often described as competent and caring, while afternoon and night staff are repeatedly characterized as unresponsive, uncaring, or slow to respond to call bells. Long call bell delays and repeated unanswered requests appear across many summaries. More alarming are repeated accounts of inadequate wound care, rough handling during wound dressing, infections, and at least one allegation of sepsis following facility care. There are detailed reports of poor pain management and medication delays — including a report of a nurse attempting to remove staples and breaking one, leaving a staple causing pain — plus anecdotal claims of medication mishandling (for example, a clinician smoking during a med pass). These clinical concerns are associated with reports of bedsores, worsening conditions, hospitalizations, and in extreme cases death or severe decline claimed by reviewers.
Cleanliness and environmental quality are strongly contested in the reviews. Many families describe the facility as very clean, odor-free, and well maintained, crediting housekeeping with turning the place around since 2018 and naming the housekeeping manager as helpful. Conversely, an equally large and vocal set of reviewers report roaches, flies, mold or dirt around air conditioning, infrequent linen changes, and general squalor. Dining and nutrition also split opinion: some reviewers praise delicious meals, while others complain about cold, bland food and failures to follow dietary restrictions (diabetic and heart-healthy diets not updated promptly). This pattern of contradictory experiences suggests substantial variability across units, shifts, and time periods — and possibly changes tied to management turnover.
Management, staffing, and organizational culture emerge as key drivers of the inconsistent experiences. Several reviews note high staff turnover, frequent administrative changes, scheduling abuses, and a toxic workplace culture that could explain variability in care quality. Some families report management that is unresponsive or dismissive, problematic communication (lost medications, chaotic admissions, phone lines that cannot be reached), and a difficult or disorganized discharge process that required repeated signatures and left families without clear guidance. At least one review names a new administrator (Gladys) and describes an improved, more helpful approach under new management; other reviewers explicitly warn of weekend delays in locating missing items and inconsistent/inaccurate information about residents' belongings, including allegations that staff withheld possessions.
Safety, abuse, and theft allegations are serious themes that recur enough to be notable. Multiple reviewers allege negligent or abusive behavior — including aggressive yelling at non-ambulatory residents, residents left in hallways, theft of money and credit cards, and staff roughness during wound care. Some reviewers call for undercover visits or investigations. Reports of inadequate RN coverage (no RN on shift 24 hours) and staff shortages further heighten safety concerns because they are tied directly to delayed responses, missed care, poor medication management, and lapses that allegedly resulted in severe medical complications for residents.
Taken together, the reviews paint a facility with pockets of excellence — especially in therapy, some nursing staff, and housekeeping/laundry per a number of families — alongside recurring, significant problems in nursing consistency, wound and pain management, cleanliness in other reports, communication, and management responsiveness. The most common practical takeaway from reviewers is that family advocacy and close oversight materially affect outcomes: several families reported stepping in, monitoring care closely, or insisting on removals when care declined. Because experiences vary widely, prospective residents and families should (1) ask specific questions about nursing coverage and wound-care protocols, (2) inquire about recent staffing turnover and who covers nights/weekends, (3) visit multiple times and on different shifts (including evenings/weekends) to observe responsiveness and cleanliness, (4) verify policies on valuables and item handling, and (5) request references or follow-up from recent families to confirm whether recent administrative changes (such as new leadership) have led to sustained improvements. The reviews indicate potential for high-quality rehab care but also clear and recurring risks tied to inconsistent nursing, management, and safety practices that families should evaluate carefully before placement.