Overall sentiment: Reviews for Fayetteville Center for Nursing and Healing are highly polarized and inconsistent. A substantial number of families report excellent, compassionate, and effective care—especially around admissions, therapy, and a set of individual staff and leaders—while many other reviewers describe severe lapses in basic nursing care, safety, communication, and facility maintenance. The balance of reviews suggests strong variability by wing, shift, and individual staff members, producing experiences that range from outstanding rehabilitation and attentive nursing to allegations of neglect, injury, infection, and even death.
Care quality and patient safety: A dominant negative theme is concern about basic nursing care and patient safety. Numerous accounts describe residents being left in urine or feces for hours, missed medications (including insulin and antibiotics), delayed responses to call lights, and critical lapses that precipitated emergency room transfers or intensive care admissions. Specific, serious clinical failures are reported repeatedly: catheter misplacement or dislodgement leading to infection and pain; delayed recognition or treatment of UTIs and sepsis; development or worsening of pressure ulcers; falls with poor follow-up and long notification delays; and alleged medication administration errors. Positive reports do exist of attentive nursing teams who ensured timely medical attention, but the frequency and severity of adverse reports (ER/ICU admissions, delayed care, wounds, and deaths) are notable and concerning.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication: Staffing levels and responsiveness are a recurring fault line. Many reviewers report understaffed shifts, long response times, nonfunctional call systems, and difficulty reaching administrators or clinicians by phone (including full voicemail boxes). Conversely, other reviews highlight individual staff members and leaders who provided exceptional communication and family updates, managed discharges well, and advocated for patients. The pattern is one of inconsistent staffing and inconsistent administrative responsiveness: families that encountered specific, proactive staff (named repeatedly across reviews) received clear updates and good outcomes; families who could not get through to clinical leaders experienced silence, unreturned calls, and dismissed concerns.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Rehabilitation services receive mixed but frequently positive commentary. Many families praise the physical and occupational therapy teams for helping patients regain function, with multiple reports of successful discharges home. However, some reviewers criticize therapy for being too brief (15-minute sessions), under-resourced, or inconsistent, and others report limited rehab equipment and halted therapy without explanation. Thus, while the facility appears capable of delivering high-quality rehab care in many cases, availability and intensity of services can vary significantly.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and infection control: Reviews about cleanliness are split. Numerous reports describe a clean, bright, and well-maintained facility with no odors and spotless public areas; these reviewers credit housekeeping and the facility ambiance. In stark contrast, many others report mildew, urine/feces odors, pests (flies, ants), dirty rooms, holes in sheets, unclean bathrooms, unaddressed water leaks, and delayed maintenance. Several reviewers specifically cited infection control concerns, quarantine mismanagement, and poor pest control. The coexistence of both positive and negative cleanliness reports suggests variability across wings or over time, and multiple complaints indicate structural maintenance and housekeeping need attention.
Dining and daily living services: Dining receives frequent comments for both praise and criticism. Positive reviews note decent food, hot meals, and some dietary accommodations, while negative reviews describe repetitive menus (tomato soup and cheese sandwiches), cold or overcooked food, missed meals, and failure to respect dietary restrictions. Complaints also include inadequate provision of basic supplies such as washcloths, towels, and chucks, as well as laundry issues (missing clothes, clothing mixed between residents, and laundry not done for weeks).
Management, administration, and alleged misconduct: Administrative performance is another divergent theme. Some administrators and leaders (named in multiple favorable reviews) are singled out for compassionate, responsive leadership, frequent family outreach, and operational smoothness. Other reviewers report unprofessional upper management, nonresponsive directors, and in some cases allegations of fraudulent financial activity and exploitation (e.g., claims of fraudulent electronic signatures and unauthorized bank account access). Several reviews accuse management of defending staff or failing to act on documented neglect. This dichotomy suggests pockets of strong leadership coexisting with systemic management and oversight issues that have led families to involve state regulators.
The human element: Individual staff members make a huge difference in outcomes and family perceptions. Numerous reviewers named specific caregivers, nurses, therapists, and administrators who provided exceptional care and communication; their efforts are repeatedly described as the reason a stay succeeded. Yet there are also repeated reports of rude, condescending, or even threatening behavior from other staff members, including allegations of harassment, verbal abuse, and physical mishandling during transfers. These polarized personal experiences heavily influence overall sentiment and point to uneven training, culture, and supervision.
Patterns and recommendations for families assessing the facility: The reviews paint a picture of a facility with real strengths—particularly in therapy/rehab in many cases, certain dedicated staff, and an effective admissions process—but also significant, recurring risks related to nursing care, responsiveness, safety, and property security. The variability is the defining characteristic: some patients thrive and go home improved, while others experience neglect, injury, or worse. Families should therefore perform thorough, up-to-date checks before placement: request current staffing ratios, ask about recent regulatory citations or complaints, meet therapy and nursing leaders, verify how call systems and phones are maintained, check room cleanliness and pest-control measures in the specific wing, and obtain names of the accountable clinical staff who will manage the patient. If a decision is made to place a loved one, close monitoring during the first 72 hours and frequent follow-up calls/visits thereafter are advised given the inconsistent reports.
Overall conclusion: Fayetteville Center for Nursing and Healing elicits strongly mixed feedback. The presence of numerous highly positive reviews—often tied to named individuals and specific wings—demonstrates the facility’s potential to provide very good rehab and compassionate care. However, the volume and severity of negative reports—especially those alleging neglect, safety failures, medication/catheter errors, theft, and poor management—are significant and cannot be ignored. The data indicate systemic variability that has real consequences for resident safety and family trust. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of experiences carefully, verify current conditions and leadership, and maintain active involvement during any stay.
