Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed and polarized: a substantial portion of families and former residents report excellent rehabilitation, caring and attentive staff, and a clean, home‑like environment, while another substantial portion report serious shortcomings in nursing care, hygiene, safety, and management. The dominant positive theme is the facility’s rehabilitation and therapy program. Many reviews specifically praise physical and occupational therapists, aggressive and effective therapy plans, and measurable progress — several families credit Solaris with helping loved ones reach recovery goals and enabling successful discharges home. Multiple reviewers, including a former career rehab nurse, emphasize that the therapy department is a standout strength.
Closely tied to those positive experiences are frequent reports of individual staff members who offer compassionate, personalized care. Front desk greeters and specific CNAs/RNs receive repeated praise for friendliness, helpfulness, and making families feel welcome (names such as Maryanne, MaryLuz, Hazel, Tabatha, Glenda, Adameris and others are mentioned positively). Many reviewers note that staff learned residents’ names, accommodated schedules (for dialysis or appointments), coordinated transportation, and went the "extra mile." Housekeeping is praised in numerous accounts, and several reviews describe clean rooms and a pleasant, homelike atmosphere with engaging activities.
Contrasting sharply with those positives are numerous and serious negative reports focused on nursing care, safety, and cleanliness. Many reviewers describe unresponsive or uncaring nursing staff, empty nurses’ stations, and delayed responses to calls for assistance. There are multiple allegations of neglect and abuse, including falls, recurrence of ER visits after admission, development of bedsores, failure to send residents for needed hospital care, and reports of infections or septic shock. Some reviews describe poor hygiene (moldy or damp smells, old bedding, filthy nails, soiled clothing left on residents) and specific clinical failures such as missed dialysis treatments, medication errors, and lack of awareness about important diagnoses (e.g., uncommunicated fractures/osteoporosis). These issues are sometimes linked to serious outcomes including hospitalization and death in reviewers’ accounts.
Facility and environmental concerns recur in many reviews. Several reviewers describe the building as old and in need of remodeling: small shared rooms barely adequate for two people, old mattresses and beds, window AC units, damp or moldy air, and an overall appearance that some find depressing or not conducive to healing. At the same time, other reviewers call the facility very clean and well maintained, which underscores inconsistencies across units, shifts, or time periods. Dining receives mixed feedback: some praise meals and activities, while others complain about poor food quality, canned soup, lack of allergy accommodations, and requests for more protein/greens.
Communication and management emerge as an inconsistent area. Many reviewers call out effective communication, helpful social workers, long‑standing leadership, and staff who promptly resolve issues. Conversely, a substantial set of reviews cite poor communication from nurses or caseworkers, delayed equipment provision (e.g., wheelchairs), restricted visitation at end of life, rude administrative staff, and even billing disputes requiring escalation to corporate. Several reviews name specific staff negatively (for example, complaints about a nurse Rosalinda Tomimbang and a nurse Rosa), and numerous families accuse management of lacking accountability or demonizing concerned relatives.
Patterns in the data suggest variability by shift, staff cohort, or time: the same facility is described as "one of the better facilities in the area" by some and a "nightmare" by others. That variability is reflected in recurring advice from reviewers: tour the facility, ask direct questions about nursing response times, infection control, weekend physician coverage, staffing ratios, dialysis coordination, and policies on end‑of‑life visitation. Prospective residents and families should verify the therapy program if rehab is the goal (it is frequently praised) and probe clinical and safety practices if long‑term skilled nursing is the need.
In summary, Solaris HealthCare Osceola receives high marks for rehabilitation services, many individual caregivers, therapy outcomes, and certain administrative and housekeeping staff. However, there are consistent and serious criticisms about nursing responsiveness, cleanliness and infection control in some cases, safety incidents (falls, bedsores), medication and treatment errors, outdated rooms and crowding, and uneven management/communication. Experiences appear highly variable: potential residents and families should weigh the strong positive testimonials about therapy and some staff against the significant negative safety and care reports, and should perform a focused tour and direct inquiries about the specific concerns reflected in these reviews before deciding.
