Overall sentiment in the reviews is deeply mixed but leans toward serious concern. Many reviewers describe highly positive, compassionate interactions — citing friendly front desk staff, favorite caregivers, effective therapists, and families who felt their loved ones received excellent care. At the same time a large number of reviews recount troubling issues: alleged neglect, inconsistent nursing care, medication problems, hygiene lapses, sanitation and pest problems, and facility infrastructure that feels dated and in need of renovation. The reviews paint a picture of a facility where experience varies dramatically depending on which staff members and shifts a resident encounters.
Care quality and clinical adherence are central themes. Positive reports highlight good physicians and therapy teams, individualized attention from certain nurses and aides, and successful rehabilitation or supportive long-term care for conditions such as Parkinson’s. Conversely, multiple reviewers allege neglect: patients reportedly left without adequate food or drink, not bathed, with linens unchanged, and nails or dental needs ignored. There are specific clinical concerns raised about medication management — documented medication errors, delayed delivery of medications, and instances reviewers describe as withholding — as well as inadequate pain management and failures to follow wound-care orders (for example, not turning a patient as prescribed). One review mentioned lack of an on-staff respiratory therapist, which could be significant for residents with respiratory needs.
Staff behavior and culture appear inconsistent. Several reviews praise named caregivers (Kiara, Tara, Ms. April, Ms. Sade) and call staff "angels," describing kind, compassionate care and a home-like atmosphere. In contrast, other reviewers report extremely rude or unprofessional conduct from nurses and CNAs, including yelling at patients, cursing, petulant behavior, and what some characterize as laziness or indifference. Specific names (Marie, Mrs. Jackson, Leandra) are cited in negative accounts. These stark contrasts indicate variability in staff performance and possibly gaps in supervision, training, or retention that create uneven resident experiences.
Facility condition, sanitation, and environment are recurring issues. Several reviewers describe the building as outdated — “1950s look,” in need of fresh paint and modern decor — and express desire for brighter rooms, flowers, outdoor seating, and updated artwork. Others praise cleanliness and security, suggesting improvements or variable housekeeping standards. Serious sanitation concerns are also reported: odors (urine, ventilation problems), roach sightings, and overcrowded rooms (reports of three residents sharing a room). Equipment problems were mentioned too (an air mattress reportedly causing bed issues). These physical and environmental complaints are significant because they directly affect resident dignity, infection control, and overall quality of life.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Some families praise tasty meals, accommodating kitchen staff, and activity programming that helps residents socialize. Others report poor, inedible food and insufficient activities, especially for residents on pureed diets with limited variety. The variance in these reports aligns with the broader pattern of inconsistent care: for some residents the daily life experience is warm and engaging, while others find it lacking.
Administration, safety, and accountability are prominent concerns in several reviews. Allegations include poor communication with families, lack of clear care plans, unsafe discharges, hospice coordination failures, and even billing after a resident’s death. Several reviewers stated they planned to report the facility to oversight bodies (Joint Commission, ombudsman, authorities). At the same time, multiple reviews mention a new management team and ongoing remodeling efforts, and some families note marked improvements in maintenance and leadership. This suggests there may be active attempts at quality improvement, though reviewers disagree about the pace and sufficiency of changes.
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews collectively show two dominant patterns — pockets of very good care delivered by committed staff and therapists, and recurrent systemic problems tied to staffing, training, clinical adherence, and facility upkeep. The most frequently cited risks are hygiene neglect, medication mishandling/delays, unprofessional staff conduct, sanitation/pest issues, and inconsistent leadership oversight. For someone evaluating this facility or a family considering placement, reviewers recommend verifying current management changes and renovations, asking for specific information about staffing ratios and clinical supervision, confirming wound/pain management and medication protocols, touring multiple rooms at different times of day, and monitoring pest control and sanitation practices. Several reviewers explicitly encouraged regulatory inspection or ombudsman involvement, reflecting the seriousness of some allegations.
In summary, Jacksonville Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare elicits sharply divided impressions: many families celebrate dedicated caregivers, therapists, and improvements under new management, while others report alarming neglect, unsafe practices, and poor facility conditions. Any decision should weigh both sets of reports, confirm up-to-date improvements under new leadership, and seek clear assurances about clinical protocols, staff training, sanitation, and accountability mechanisms before placement.
