Overall sentiment and pattern Reviews for Harborview Thomaston are strongly polarized but trend toward serious concerns. A recurring pattern is a contrast between dedicated frontline caregivers (nurses, CNAs, and some therapists) who receive repeated praise, and systemic problems centered on management, staffing, and facility operations that undermine resident safety and basic care. While several reviewers describe compassionate, hardworking staff and positive short-term rehab outcomes, a large portion of the feedback alleges neglect, poor hygiene, and unsafe conditions that families found unacceptable.
Care quality and direct caregiving Many reviewers explicitly praise individual nurses, CNAs, and therapists as compassionate, patient, and professional — often noting that these staff members try to do their best despite difficult circumstances. At the same time, numerous reports describe basic care deficits: residents reportedly not bathed, left in bed all day, not assisted to the bathroom, or not fed. Several accounts mention soiled gowns and diapers, urine odors, and residents left in dirty conditions. There are multiple serious health and safety claims, including bedsores, MRSA infection, falls resulting in fractured hips, and alleged failures of in-house diagnostic services (e.g., an X-ray failing to detect an issue). Some reviewers explicitly advise others not to send loved ones because of these safety concerns.
Staffing, morale, and administration A dominant theme is staffing shortages and low staff morale. Reviewers attribute missed care and delayed assistance to under-staffing and overworked personnel. Many comments state that nurses and CNAs are underpaid, leaving, or stretched too thin, which contributes to a chaotic environment where residents wait for help. Management and administration are often criticized: reviewers describe administration as profit-driven, inattentive, or hostile, with accusations of favoritism, harassment, and a toxic workplace culture. Some families reported difficulty obtaining medical records, misleading communication, or outright lying by staff/administration. One or more reviewers described an abusive or hostile administrator. These management issues are frequently cited as the root cause of declines in care quality despite the commitment of many direct-care staff.
Facility condition, hygiene, and maintenance Reports of facility condition are mixed but include substantial negative comments. Several reviewers describe musty or strong urine odors, dirty sheets and bathrooms, and laundry problems. Other reviewers, however, call the facility very clean and note ongoing renovations. This split suggests uneven housekeeping and maintenance — some areas or shifts may be well-managed while others are not. Reviewers also noted practical problems such as no hot water and an overall rundown building in some accounts, alongside positives like nice rooms and ongoing renovation work in others.
Medical care, diagnostics, and safety incidents Beyond day-to-day hygiene, reviewers raised serious concerns about medical care and safety. Allegations include oxygen being administered without family notification, medication changes reportedly causing harm (one reviewer linked a medication change to a stroke), failure to detect injuries with in-house X-ray, and outbreaks or infections (including MRSA and COVID). Bedsores and untreated wounds are cited multiple times. These reports indicate inconsistent clinical oversight and potential lapses in protocols for infection control, documentation, and family communication.
Rehab, activities, and services Feedback about rehab and therapies is notably mixed. Several families praise the rehab team and describe positive outcomes for stroke and post-operative recovery; some even called therapy “amazing.” Conversely, other reviewers raised concerns that therapy staff are harassed or that the rehab department has unethical practices. Activities staff and admissions staff were singled out positively in multiple reviews, and practical amenities — such as transportation, Wi‑Fi, and the ability to bring food and a personal TV — are mentioned as advantages.
Dining and personal logistics Dining receives mixed reviews: some say food is merely “okay” or “cheap” and that meals can be cold, while others say residents like the food. Several reviewers appreciated the flexibility to bring food from home or order takeout. Personal items and laundry were another problematic area: missing or unaccounted-for belongings, dirty laundry, and failures in housekeeping appeared repeatedly.
Communication and family experience Poor communication is a frequent complaint: families report unreturned calls, staff hanging up, lack of a reliable house phone, difficult window visits, and poor notification about treatments (e.g., oxygen). Some reviewers describe a distinctly negative emotional impact from interactions with administration or staff and slow responses when urgent care was needed (vomiting episodes, delayed responses to calls). Conversely, other families described staff as empathetic and said the long drive to visit was worth it because their loved one seemed to like the facility.
Overall assessment and notable patterns The reviews paint a picture of a facility with capable and often compassionate frontline staff working under stressful, understaffed, and poorly managed conditions. Positive elements include individual caregivers, some strong therapy results, good amenities (Wi‑Fi, transportation, room size), and elements of a supportive activities program. However, consistent and serious concerns — including alleged neglect, hygiene problems, medical and safety incidents, poor administration, and possible financial/ethical misconduct — recur across multiple reviews. The presence of both strong praise for some staff and severe accusations of neglect and mismanagement suggests variability in experience that may be driven by staffing levels, shift-to-shift differences, and managerial practices.
Implications for families Families considering Harborview Thomaston should weigh the reported strengths (caring individual staff, rehab successes, certain amenities) against the frequent and severe concerns (neglect, bedsores, infections, poor communication, alleged exploitation of funds). The reviews indicate it would be prudent to: (1) visit in person and observe multiple shifts if possible, (2) ask detailed questions about staffing ratios, wound care protocols, infection control, and how the facility handles family communication, (3) request written policies on incident reporting and access to medical records, and (4) monitor care closely during an initial stay. Given the number of reports citing safety and neglect, families should be particularly vigilant about hygiene, toileting assistance, nutrition, and wound management in any placement decision.
