The reviews for Mountain View Health Care Center are sharply polarized but reveal a clear pattern: many families and residents praise individual caregivers and frontline staff for compassion and competence, while a substantial number of accounts describe systemic facility, management, and safety problems. Positive comments consistently highlight caring nurses, attentive staff who keep families informed, individualized meal adjustments, transition support during admission and discharge, and instances where rooms were kept spotless. For some families these factors provided peace of mind and represented good value.
Contrastingly, a large portion of reviews raise serious, recurring concerns about the physical plant and basic living conditions. Multiple reviewers describe an old, run-down building with very small multi-occupancy rooms (including reports of three residents per room), lack of privacy, and little space for personal belongings. Cleanliness reports are inconsistent but deeply troubling in many accounts: roaches, bed bugs, mold, and damp/wet environments are specifically mentioned alongside calls for the facility to be shut down or renovated. Some reviewers report spotless rooms, which underscores variability in standards or inconsistent housekeeping across units or shifts.
Staffing and care delivery are another major theme. Several reviews praise specific nurses and caregivers for exceptional, compassionate care and good communication with families. However, an equal or greater number of reviews report understaffing, long call light response times, unresponsive staff at key moments (for example, no staff at the door on arrival), denial of basic services or activities, and instances of residents being unbathed or unfed. These reports suggest inconsistent staffing levels or uneven training/supervision, producing a wide range of resident experiences from excellent to neglectful.
Management, leadership, and financial practices are frequent sources of complaint. Multiple reviewers allege poor leadership, condescending management attitudes, and direct bullying or harassment by HR or facility leaders (with two individuals named). There are numerous, serious allegations of financial misconduct—hidden charges, overcharging, stealing, and billing disputes—some severe enough that reviewers called for state investigations. Several reviews mention state intervention or the need for regulatory action. Combined with accusations of profit-driven behavior and improper medication handling, these reports raise safety and ethical concerns beyond ordinary quality-of-care issues.
Dining and activities show mixed feedback. Some residents report regular activities, good food, and communal dining that supports socialization. Others report bad food, denied activities, empty vending machines, and lack of seating in common areas. COVID-related restrictions were explicitly mentioned by one reviewer as a cause for reduced activities, which may account for some variability but does not fully explain reports of denied programming.
Overall, the pattern is one of high variability: families who encountered committed, attentive caregivers and specific positive experiences report gratitude and strong recommendations; families who experienced facility-level problems—aging infrastructure, infestations, understaffing, management misconduct, or financial irregularities—report deeply negative experiences and serious safety concerns. The reviews point to systemic issues that appear to stem from the physical state of the facility and leadership/management practices, which in turn may affect staffing stability and care consistency. Prospective residents and families should be prepared for uneven experiences: the presence of highly praised staff is encouraging, but the recurring accounts of environmental hazards, staffing shortages, leadership problems, and financial allegations are significant and actionable concerns that warrant careful onsite inspection and review of regulatory records before placement.
