The reviews for Bloomington Rehabilitation and Health Care present a highly mixed and polarized picture, with a significant divide between strong praise for individual staff members and therapy services on one hand, and serious allegations of neglect, poor hygiene, and unsafe conditions on the other. Many reviewers emphasize exemplary, compassionate caregivers, effective PT/OT programs, and a welcoming, family-like environment that helped residents recover or feel at home. These positive comments frequently single out named employees and specific departments — nursing assistants, therapists, activity staff, and certain administrators — for going above and beyond, providing attentive one-on-one care, and creating engaging programming for residents.
Conversely, a substantial portion of the feedback reports critical and alarming problems. Multiple reviewers describe neglectful or abusive behavior by staff, including leaving residents in soiled conditions for hours, failing to assist with toileting or ambulation, and stopping or denying necessary medications. There are explicit allegations of clinical lapses such as improper ostomy care, medication being crushed and administered improperly, untreated infections (UTIs) leading to hospitalization, and pain medications being discontinued. Several reviews report lost clothing and personal items, including a hearing aid, and claim that families were not adequately informed about changes in care or serious incidents.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance are another recurring theme with sharply divergent experiences. Some reviewers report noticeable improvements under a new administrator and an expanded housekeeping team, noting cleaner common areas, fresh foods, and tolerable or even good dining options. Others, however, describe a dirty and deteriorating environment with worn linens and furnishings, dried feces in hallways, and shared cramped rooms where beds are placed too close together. These differences suggest variability over time and across units — several reviewers specifically mention renovations or a change in management that appear to have improved conditions for some residents.
Dining and nutrition feedback is similarly mixed. Multiple comments praise specific dietary staff and improvements such as fresh foods and meal alternatives, while other reviewers strongly criticize the quantity, quality, and suitability of meals for residents with medical dietary needs. Reports of unsafe meals and poor nutrition are particularly concerning for medically vulnerable residents and were cited alongside clinical complaints in the most severe negative reviews.
Management, communication, and responsiveness emerge as central factors shaping reviewer perceptions. Positive reviews often pair compliments about caring staff with praise for administrators who are involved and communicative. In contrast, many negative accounts call out unresponsive administrators and corporate staff, poor communication with families, and a perceived profit-first mentality. Several reviewers note improvements after leadership changes, implying that management turnover has had a direct impact on cleanliness, dietary offerings, activity programming, and overall morale.
Safety and regulatory concerns appear in a subset of reviews. Some reviewers claim federal and state violations and mention state involvement or warnings, with at least one commenter urging others not to bring loved ones to the facility. There are also deeply serious allegations including a reported fall resulting in a fatal head injury, and other incidents described as residents being abandoned or dying alone. These reports are grave and, combined with reported clinical lapses, suggest areas that warrant careful investigation and monitoring by families and regulators.
Patterns across the reviews point to inconsistency: many families and residents experienced excellent, compassionate care and effective rehabilitation that led to good outcomes and strong recommendations. At the same time, a notable number of reviews describe systemic problems including understaffing, lapses in basic hygiene and clinical care, and poor communication. Several reviewers explicitly note a turnaround after new leadership hired more housekeeping staff, a new dietary manager, and new activities personnel, which suggests the facility may be in a period of transition striving to correct previous deficiencies. For prospective families, the most reliable signals appear to be direct observations of current staffing levels, cleanliness, medication management procedures, incident reporting practices, and the responsiveness of administration to concerns.
In summary, Bloomington Rehabilitation and Health Care receives both strong endorsements for individual caregivers, therapists, and some recent management improvements, and serious criticisms about neglect, safety, and cleanliness. The facility seems capable of providing high-quality rehab and compassionate long-term care in many cases, but there are multiple reports of severe failures that have led to distressing outcomes for other families. Prospective residents and their families should conduct in-person tours, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios, medication administration policies, incident histories, and recent regulatory findings, and monitor whether the reported administrative improvements are sustained over time.
