The reviews of Pinellas Park Post-Acute and Rehabilitation Center reveal a highly polarized experience: many families and residents praise the staff, the social activities, and successful rehabilitation outcomes, while numerous others report serious concerns about cleanliness, safety, staffing, and management responsiveness. Both glowing and alarming accounts are frequent, indicating wide variability in day-to-day quality and oversight.
Care quality and staff behavior: A recurring theme is inconsistency in direct care. Multiple reviews describe nurses, CNAs, and therapists who are compassionate, attentive, and effective — with specific staff members (Sierra, Lashairi, Robert, Tim, Lisa) singled out for praise. These reviewers report good communication with families, helpful therapy that aided recovery, and respectful treatment during end-of-life care. In contrast, many reviews report neglectful care: residents left in soiled or wet undergarments for long periods, missed meals and medications, nonresponsive call lights, and CNAs who cancel shifts or do not engage with residents. Several reviewers stated that nighttime staffing is particularly problematic. The net effect is a split picture where some residents receive high-quality, attentive care while others experience clear care failures.
Cleanliness, pests, and facility condition: Cleanliness reports are sharply divided. Some reviewers describe the facility as spotless with clean linens and rooms, while others report serious sanitation issues including roaches, ants, mold on bed frames, urine and fecal odors, and rooms where feces or soiled trays were left unattended. These sanitation complaints are often paired with reports of inadequate supplies for staff and declining housekeeping standards over time; reviewers described a facility that "went from great to horrible". Equipment and environmental problems (broken AC, outdated or unsafe beds, broken wheelchairs) were also reported and tied to resident discomfort and safety concerns.
Safety, injuries, and clinical concerns: There are multiple reports of safety hazards and clinical lapses. Reviewers described unresolved wounds, infections, and injuries (a black eye, an arm gash), along with allegations that wound care and infection control were inadequate. Some families reported medication errors or missed doses, medicines left on the floor, and delays in arranging appropriate hospital transfers. A few reviews assert very serious outcomes including a death under investigation and potential legal action. These reports raise concerns about both clinical competency and oversight, especially given claims of inadequate supervision and no onsite management presence during some shifts.
Staffing, supervision, and management responsiveness: Understaffing and staffing reliability were frequent complaints. Reported CNA cancellations, a high patient-to-CNA ratio, nurses refusing to work (including circulated social media videos), and long waits for assistance were commonly mentioned. Families frequently noted poor responsiveness from management and social work — delayed discharges, unhelpful social workers, Director of Nursing not returning calls — and inconsistent supervision that allowed lapses in care to persist. Conversely, other reviewers reported supportive and responsive management, describing the facility as well-run and family-like. This divergence suggests variable leadership performance or uneven enforcement of standards across shifts or units.
Dining, activities, and resident life: Activity programming and events are clear strengths for many residents: bingo, cookouts, holiday parties, music, and social activities were highlighted positively and appear to contribute to resident enjoyment. Food quality, however, drew mixed reactions: some reviewers appreciated the meals, while others described food as cold, hospital-like, overcooked, or inedible ("gray meat") and linked poor nutrition to weight loss. Meal assistance problems were also reported — trays left in front of residents who cannot feed themselves and a lack of timely help during meals.
Patterns and notable contradictions: The most striking pattern is inconsistency: many families report exceptional, compassionate care and a clean, engaging environment, while a substantial number report neglect, unsanitary conditions, medication and meal lapses, and safety hazards. Specific praise for named staff and successful rehab outcomes coexist with allegations of serious neglect and possible misconduct. Several reviews highlight a decline over time or differences across shifts (day vs. night), implying systemic staffing or management issues rather than isolated incidents.
Overall impression and implications: The facility appears to deliver excellent care to some residents and poor or dangerous care to others. Recurrent issues — sanitation/pest problems, understaffing, ignored call lights, missed meds/meals, equipment failures, and inconsistent management responsiveness — are significant and have immediate implications for resident safety. Families considering this facility should weigh the polarized feedback carefully: visit multiple times (including evenings and weekends), speak with therapy and nursing leadership, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, inspect rooms for pests and odors, and verify complaint resolution processes. For current families, monitoring care closely, documenting incidents, and escalating promptly to management, regulatory agencies, or ombudsmen may be warranted given the reports of serious incidents and inconsistent responsiveness.
