Overall sentiment: Reviews of Perimeter Rehabilitation Suites by Harborview are highly polarized and indicate significant variability in resident experience. Many families and residents describe excellent, compassionate care—particularly from physical and occupational therapy teams and several individually named nurses and CNAs—while an equally large and vocal set of reviews reports serious care failures, safety incidents, and management problems. The volume and severity of negative reports (missed medications, hygiene neglect, alleged thefts, and emergency response delays) mean that, across these summaries, the dominant themes are inconsistency and risk: outcomes depend heavily on the floor, shift, and specific staff on duty.
Care quality and safety: The most frequent and alarming concerns relate to clinical care and safety. Numerous reviews recount medication errors (wrong dosages, missed medications, and late administration), problems with insulin and supplies, and confusion over medication handling. Several accounts tie clinical decline to neglect: UTIs requiring hospitalization, bedsores, repeated falls, oxygen running out or alarms ignored, and at least one report of possible brain injury. Emergency response is a recurring issue—families report staff reluctance to call 911 or slow/absent responses to alarms and call lights. Broken or unsafe equipment such as bed rails, malfunctioning call buttons, and phones compound these risks. These are not isolated comments but repeated patterns across reviews, suggesting systemic staffing, training, and oversight gaps.
Staffing, behavior, and variability: Staffing levels and staff behavior are central to the mixed impressions. Numerous reviewers explicitly call the facility understaffed, leading to delayed care, skipped baths, patients left soiled for hours, and an inability to supervise residents who wander or require frequent assistance. High turnover and underpayment were cited as contributors to poor morale. At the same time, many reviews praise individual staff members—names like Tina, Princess, Catherine, Bahar Hasan, Demetrius, Betty, Jessica Thomas, Cleo, Michelle, Christopher, Ali, John Henry, and Stephanie appear as examples of compassionate, skilled employees—indicating that care quality is highly dependent on specific caregivers. Reviewers consistently contrast 'excellent' frontline caregivers with 'toxic' or 'unhelpful' management and administrative staff, suggesting a disconnect between clinical staff commitment and leadership/operations.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Reviews about the physical facility vary widely. Several visitors found certain floors, rooms, and communal areas clean and well-kept; others reported serious sanitation failures—urine smells, soiled linens, dirty floors, bugs, and bloodied gauze left on the floor. Maintenance complaints are common: broken beds, unrepaired doors, AC and TV issues, and outdated or cramped rooms (especially problematic for residents with hospital beds). Some reviewers note recent renovations and improvements under new management, indicating positive change in parts of the building, but persistent reports of inconsistent housekeeping and unaddressed maintenance requests point to ongoing operational problems.
Dining and nutrition: Food service receives frequent negative comments: meals served cold or late, food not matching posted menus, vegetarian/vegan and diabetic needs ignored, and a lack of desired high-calorie supplemental items. Some reviewers praise the kitchen and certain improvements, but again the picture is inconsistent—meals that work for one resident may be inedible or inappropriate for another. There are also several reports that staff did not assist residents with eating when necessary, contributing to weight loss and decline in some cases.
Administration, communication, and billing: Communication and administration are recurrent problem areas. Families report difficulty obtaining medical records, poor explanations of care decisions, rude or defensive administrative personnel, and billing disputes—including unexpected charges and disagreements over balances. Several reviews specifically accuse management of misrepresenting pay to staff, contributing to low morale, and of being unwilling or slow to address complaints. However, some reviews mention improved case management and more responsive social workers, particularly under new leadership, indicating partial efforts to address previous shortcomings.
Security, theft, and policy concerns: Multiple reviews raise concerns about security (unlocked doors, no night security, people sleeping in the building) and allegations of theft or missing personal items and money. Laundry problems—both loss and restrictions—are also mentioned repeatedly. These issues, combined with reports of inconsistent quarantine/testing practices and questionable handling of COVID-related information, add to families' distrust and worry about resident safety and dignity.
Rehabilitation strengths and improvements: A clear and consistent positive theme is the facility's rehabilitation services. Many reviewers credit PT/OT staff and specific therapists with meaningful functional improvements, citing good therapy intensity, skillful instruction, and successful discharge outcomes. Several families explicitly said the rehab team helped residents get back home. Additionally, some reports indicate recent management changes, increased staffing on certain floors, and building upgrades that improved cleanliness and customer service—evidence that issues may be addressable when resources and leadership align.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is inconsistency: excellent, attentive care delivered by committed frontline staff can coexist with systemic problems in management, staffing, communication, cleanliness, and safety. This creates high variability in resident outcomes and family satisfaction. For prospective residents or families: exercise caution, ask specific questions on tours about nurse-to-patient ratios and emergency procedures, verify dietary accommodations, request names of primary caregivers, and maintain active family involvement and monitoring—several reviewers said family vigilance materially improved outcomes. For the facility: priorities should be robust staffing, medication safety audits, consistent maintenance and housekeeping standards, improved communication and transparency, and decisive action on security and theft allegations. Where reviewers noted recent improvements and named staff who performed well, those are promising signs that targeted changes can produce better, safer resident experiences.
