Overall sentiment from these reviews is highly polarized: a substantial subset of reviewers praise Community Care Center (CCC) for compassionate staff, effective therapy services, and a warm, social environment, while an equally strong subset reports severe quality and safety failures including neglect, poor cleanliness, infection-control lapses, and administrative dysfunction. The facility appears to produce very different experiences depending on unit, shift, or individual staff, leading to widely divergent accounts ranging from “above anything anybody could hope for” to “should be shut down.”
Care quality and staff performance: The most consistent positive theme is the presence of many caring, skilled individuals—nurses, CNAs, therapists, and some administrators—who go above and beyond, produce measurable rehab improvements, and provide strong long-term care in certain cases. The therapy department (PT/OT/COTA) receives frequent high praise for effective treatment and communication with families. Conversely, numerous reviews describe chronic understaffing, especially nights and weekends, long waits for call lights, delayed medication administration, missed doctor visits, and poor care coordination. Several reviewers reported neglect of basic needs (residents left in urine, delayed diaper changes, wet bedding) and claims of rough or abusive handling by some CNAs. This variability suggests staffing consistency and training are major drivers of resident experience.
Cleanliness, infection control, and safety: A major negative cluster centers on cleaning, infection-control, and safety. Multiple accounts state persistent urine odors in halls and rooms, dirty bathrooms, mold on ceilings, blood-stained linens, clogged sinks with vomit, fecal matter on wounds, and reports of outbreaks (MRSA/VRE and a virus attributed to an employee). There are specific infection-control concerns such as open doors to COVID-positive rooms and staff not wearing masks. Several reviews describe adverse events tied to delayed responses—fractures from falls during in-room therapy, delayed oxygen or emergent medical care, and in the most serious accounts, resident deaths with family alleging substandard care. These reports raise red flags about environmental cleaning, PPE/adherence to infection prevention protocols, supervision, and emergency responsiveness.
Facilities and maintenance: Reviews describe an aging, inconsistently maintained physical plant. Complaints include old beds, small or dark rooms, shared bathrooms between rooms, rotting decking, and other rundown infrastructure. Some families contrast an older-looking facility with good upkeep in certain areas (clean, well-maintained) versus others who saw mold, peeling surfaces, and infectious odors. The physical state appears uneven across wings or over time, contributing to mixed impressions.
Belongings, laundry, and privacy: A recurring theme is mishandling or disappearance of personal items and laundry—clothing delayed or never returned, toiletries lost or stolen, watches gone. Several reviewers mentioned uncovered diapers, curtains and doors left open, and privacy breaches (including an account of transport to dialysis while nude). These issues compound concerns about dignity, respect, and administrative accountability.
Dining and activities: Dining reviews are mixed. Some residents and families praise above-average, customizable meals, attentive dining service, and extras like a refreshment cart and remembered beverage preferences. Others report cold or poor-quality food. Activities are generally described positively (bingo, church, social dining room, patio access), although some reviewers wished for more variety or frequency. Activities staff and the social model appear to be strengths when adequately staffed.
Management, communication, and administration: Communication and administration are inconsistent. Several reviewers singled out excellent social workers, activities directors, and receptionists by name for helpfulness and clear, inclusive care planning. However, many families report difficulty reaching administration, missed care-plan meetings, refund/billing problems, and disorganized discharge handling (delays, items left behind, room reassignment errors). This uneven administrative performance contributes to family stress and distrust.
Patterns and risk indicators: The reviews reveal a pattern of bifurcated experiences—some residents receive attentive, high-quality care with strong rehab outcomes and good social supports, while others experience neglect, unsafe conditions, and serious lapses. Frequently mentioned risk indicators include understaffing at night/weekends, inconsistent housekeeping and infection control, poor tracking/handling of personal items, variable CNA conduct, and breakdowns in communication between clinical staff, primary care/physicians, and families. Reports of serious incidents (falls with confirmed fractures, infection outbreaks, delayed emergent response, and deaths) are particularly concerning and suggest an urgent need for systematic quality improvement, stronger oversight, and transparent incident reporting.
Recommendation summary: Prospective residents and families should weigh the polarized reports carefully. Strengths to consider are the facility’s capable therapy team, several compassionate staff members, active activities, and in some cases good meals and a social environment. However, repeated and serious allegations around cleanliness, infection control, neglect, understaffing, theft of belongings, and variable administrative responsiveness are notable. If considering CCC, visitors should tour the specific unit, ask about staffing ratios, infection-control policies and recent inspection results, verify how personal items and laundry are handled, confirm physician coverage and medication-handling protocols, and seek references from current families on the specific wing or shift. For current families raising concerns, escalation to facility administration, documented complaints to state survey agencies, and careful monitoring of care plans and incidents are warranted given the severity of some reported problems.
