Overall sentiment in the reviews for Thunderbolt Transitional Care & Rehabilitation is highly mixed but trends toward significant concern. A portion of reviewers report positive experiences highlighting caring, compassionate staff, effective therapy services, and helpful admissions or administrative personnel. However, a large and consistent set of reports describes systemic problems: understaffing, inconsistent care quality, neglect of basic hygiene and incontinence needs, ignored call lights and long delays for assistance, and safety lapses. These negative reports are frequent and serious enough to dominate the overall impression for many reviewers.
Care quality and patient safety emerge as the most frequent and consequential themes. Multiple reviewers describe residents left in soiled diapers or filth for hours, bedbound residents given in-bed toileting instead of assisted transfers, ignored requests for help with eating and drinking, and delays in clinical response. Several reviews describe medication errors or mismanagement, alleged failure to follow DNR orders, and even deaths or extremely serious neglect incidents. There are also allegations of physical abuse and rough handling. Conversely, other reviewers praised specific nurses, CNAs, and therapy staff for attentive, compassionate care and rehabilitation progress. This sharp variability — excellent care from some staff on some shifts vs. neglect and unsafe conditions on others — is a persistent pattern across the comments.
Staffing and staff behavior are central to both the positive and negative impressions. Many reviews explicitly call out chronic understaffing: only a few nurses on site, one nurse per hall, or just three nurses in the building. That understaffing is cited as the proximate cause of ignored call lights, missed hygiene care, and long waits for assistance. Reviews also describe a wide range in staff demeanor and competence: some employees (admissions staff Maya and Latoya are named positively by multiple reviewers) are described as going above and beyond, advocating for families and communicating well, while other caregivers are said to be rude, lazy, disrespectful, or inadequately trained. Several reviews point to administrative indifference or even abusive behavior by management, though others report a new administrator and D.O.N. who have initiated improvements and been responsive.
Facility, cleanliness, and infection control are mixed topics. Positive comments note attractive common spaces, a pleasant backyard/front porch, scenic views, and that parts of the building are being renovated. Yet many reviewers report sanitation problems — odors, roaches, clogged toilets, dirty rooms, and food safety issues — and some allege that cosmetic upgrades have been prioritized over clinical care. There are also multiple reports of poor infection-control practices (mask wearing improperly, COVID outbreak, and food left at doors), undermining confidence in safety for vulnerable residents.
Dining, activities, and daily living supports are inconsistent. Some reviewers praised the food and called it the best they’d experienced; others describe cold, hard, or frozen meals, water left on trays, and late meal deliveries. An activity program appears to exist, and some families appreciated social opportunities, but several reviewers reported minimal engagement, residents isolated in rooms, or residents who are not assisted to participate. Mobility assistance and rehabilitative help are highlighted positively in some reviews (therapists described as patient and thorough), yet many accounts state residents were left without needed transfers or toileting assistance.
Communication, transparency, and administration are other recurring concerns. Numerous reviewers reported poor family communication, unanswered calls or voicemails, billing disputes, missing invoices, and lack of clarity about care plans. Some reviewers noted a helpful, proactive admissions process and administrators who intervened effectively, while others characterize management as unresponsive, hostile, or primarily focused on financial considerations rather than resident welfare. Reports of mishandled medical information and cross-state coordination failures add further concerns about administrative competence and resident privacy.
Patterns and takeaways: the facility appears to be highly dependent on individual staff members and shifts — when well-staffed and with engaged nurses/therapists, residents and families report excellent care and positive outcomes; when understaffed or staffed with less engaged employees, serious neglect, hygiene failures, and safety incidents are reported. There are credible allegations across multiple reviews of severe neglect and even abuse, but there are also clear reports of improvement efforts under new leadership and specific staff who are doing exemplary work.
For prospective residents and family members considering Thunderbolt Transitional Care & Rehabilitation, the reviews suggest caution and careful, targeted questioning. Key recommended checks before placement: ask about current staffing ratios by shift, request recent inspection and infection-control records, inquire how the facility handles mobility/incontinence care and call-bell response times, and ask for examples of how they prevent and respond to medication errors and DNR/advance directive compliance. Visit multiple times and across different shifts if possible, observe meal service and resident interactions, and request written guarantees about billing practices and communication protocols. Also consider seeking references from recent families whose loved ones received similar levels of care (short-term rehab vs. total care) to see whether the experience is consistently safe and reliable. The reviews indicate the facility can deliver good therapy and compassionate care in some cases, but the frequency and severity of negative reports — including serious safety and hygiene concerns — mean families should verify current conditions and leadership performance before deciding.
