Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative, with numerous serious care and safety concerns juxtaposed against isolated positive experiences. Several reviewers describe troubling patterns of neglect, unsanitary conditions, and inadequate personal care that raise red flags about everyday supervision and hands-on caregiving. At the same time, a subset of comments praises staff members, the building, meals, location, and certain clinical improvements, indicating variability in experiences that may depend on shifts, units, or individual staff.
Care quality and resident safety are the most recurrent and serious themes. Multiple reviews allege neglectful care manifested as residents being left in wheelchairs all day, delayed or absent diaper changes, dirty diapers and diaper rash, and the presence of severe pressure ulcers. These complaints point to failures in basic personal care, repositioning, incontinence management, and skin monitoring. Reviewers also reported urine-soaked areas and persistent urine odor, which further suggests cleanliness and infection-control issues. Several comments explicitly state that nursing staff were unresponsive or lacked concern, compounding family distress. A few reviews use strong warnings such as "Don't send your loved ones here," reflecting deeply negative personal experiences.
Staffing and workplace environment show a mixed picture. On one hand, multiple reviewers singled out friendly, nice, and helpful staff members and even named an administrative employee who made a positive impression. On the other hand, some comments portray a difficult work environment and allege staff theft, which raises concerns about oversight, morale, and accountability. The co-existence of praise for individual caregivers and accusations of neglect suggests inconsistency in staffing performance — some shifts or team members may be providing good care while others are not. Reports of unresponsive nursing staff are particularly concerning because they relate directly to resident safety and timely care.
Facilities and cleanliness are described inconsistently. Several reviewers report a clean building and praise the facility's location, while others describe urine-soaked furniture/areas, urine odor, and dirty diapers left on residents. This contradiction points to variability in cleaning practices or differences in which areas and times reviewers encountered. The presence of both "clean building" and "urine-soaked facility" comments suggests that some units or moments are adequately maintained while others are not, reinforcing the theme of uneven quality.
Dining and clinical outcomes also show mixed feedback. A subset of reviews praise the food as "great," while at least one review labels meals as harmful. Clinically, some reviewers noted positive outcomes: medication administration occurred, some patients showed improvement, and reduced swelling was observed in certain residents. There is also a hospice unit available, which some families may find important. These positive clinical notes indicate that the facility is capable of delivering effective medical interventions in some cases, but they do not negate the recurring reports of basic care failures.
Activities, visitation, and social engagement are relatively positive aspects. The facility is described as secure without being overly restrictive and having a visitor-friendly visitation policy. Reviewers noted opportunities for resident social interaction and that social contacts could positively impact residents' days. These elements suggest that, when staffed and supervised appropriately, the facility can provide a supportive social environment.
Patterns and notable concerns: the reviews reveal a pattern of inconsistent care quality — strong positives (friendly staff, clean areas, good food, clinical improvements) exist alongside severe negatives (neglect, pressure ulcers, hygiene failures, alleged theft). The most urgent, recurring issues are related to personal care (diapering and bathing), skin integrity (pressure ulcers), sanitation (urine odor/soaked areas), and staff responsiveness. These concerns are serious because they directly affect resident health, dignity, and safety. At the same time, repeated praise for certain staff members and administrative personnel indicates that some parts of the facility operate well, which may mean problems are localized or shift-dependent.
In summary, prospective residents and families should view Thomasville Health and Rehab as a facility with significant variability in resident experience. The presence of hospice services, reports of medication administration and clinical improvement, visitation friendliness, and some staff who are helpful and caring are positive signs. However, the volume and severity of negative reports — especially those alleging neglect, poor hygiene, pressure ulcers, and unresponsiveness — are substantial and warrant careful inquiry. Families considering this facility would be well advised to visit multiple times at different hours, ask specific questions about skin care, incontinence protocols, staffing levels and turnover, cleanliness routines, and incident/complaint handling, and to seek references from current resident families to better understand whether positive experiences are consistent or isolated.
