Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers offer strong praise for individual caregivers, therapy and dietary staff, and report dramatic improvement under new leadership, while an equally significant set of reviews describe serious problems with cleanliness, safety, management, and basic care. The ratings read like two distinct experiences — some families describe LaurellWood Care Center as a caring, family‑oriented small facility with attentive staff and good therapy services; others describe it as a neglected, unsafe place with theft, odors, and poor leadership. This split pattern is the dominant theme and suggests inconsistent performance that may vary by unit, staff on duty, or time period (including possible changes with new ownership/administration).
Care quality and staff: Many reviewers repeatedly praise CNAs, nurses, therapy teams, and specific employees by name, noting compassion, personal attention, and staff who learn residents' names and needs. Several reviews highlight an attentive ADON and activities director and strong therapy/rehab outcomes. Conversely, other reviewers report disrespectful or rough caregivers, CNAs cussing in halls, suspected abuse, residents screaming for help, and staff who ignore calls for assistance. Medication problems are repeatedly mentioned (ran out of pain meds, lost prescriptions), and at least one review alleges a refusal to call 911. The overall picture is that direct care staff can be excellent and affectionate toward residents at times, but care reliability appears inconsistent and in some instances dangerously poor.
Management, leadership and complaints handling: A recurrent complaint is weak or incompetent leadership: reviews call out problematic directors of nursing and administrators, failure to follow up on complaints, and advice not to trust management. Several reviewers suggest checking state complaints and one mentions potential state investigation. On the positive side, a number of reviews report dramatic improvement after leadership changes — new administrator and new DON are credited with stronger oversight and better resident experiences. There are also credibility concerns raised by reviewers who suspect fake five‑star reviews, possibly from employees or their relatives, which complicates assessment of management performance from online ratings alone.
Facility condition and safety: Physical conditions are a major source of concern in many reviews. Common complaints include persistent urine and feces odors, general dirtiness, dingy or “dungeon‑like” areas, pest problems (roaches), overcrowded rooms (reports of four men per room), missing personal items, and an overall need for major repairs and cosmetic updates. Multiple reviewers describe missing clothing or belongings and even theft of money, blankets, and shoes. At the same time, several reviewers describe the facility as clean, quiet, and well kept — often noting a small size as a benefit. The mixed reports suggest significant variability in cleanliness and safety standards, possibly depending on staffing, unit, or recent renovations/ownership changes.
Dining and activities: Reports on dining are mixed. Some reviewers praise a strong dietary team and specific leadership (notably a staff member named Jenny), and others say the food is very good and helps residents. In contrast, there are serious complaints about food quality and appropriateness — specifically that meals can be diabetic‑unfriendly (one report of a blood sugar of 275 after lunch) and that some meals are described as “garbage.” Activities leadership is singled out positively in several reviews as vigilant and caring, which aligns with comments about staff engagement when positive experiences are reported.
Notable patterns and recommended caution: Recurrent negative issues center on missing belongings/theft, odors and hygiene, staffing reliability, medication and emergency response failures, and poor leadership or billing practices. Recurrent positive themes emphasize individual caregivers, therapy, and improvements under new administration. Given these polarized accounts, prospective families should treat the facility as one with uneven performance: it can deliver excellent, personalized care at times, but there are credible reports of serious lapses and safety concerns.
Practical advice based on these reviews: visit in person multiple times (including evenings/weekends), meet the manager, DON and front‑line staff, ask about recent ownership or administrative changes and any state inspection or complaint history, request to see how medication management and incident reporting are handled, inspect rooms and dining areas for odors and pests, and ask about theft prevention and housekeeping schedules. Also verify dietary accommodations for diabetes if relevant, confirm emergency response protocols (including who calls 911), and get references from current families. The mixed but strongly polarized reviews indicate that recent leadership and staffing changes may have improved care in some areas, but vigilance and thorough, in‑person assessment are advised before making placement decisions.
