Overall sentiment in the reviews for Chicago Ridge Nursing & Rehab is highly polarized but dominated by serious negative reports. A large portion of reviewers describe severe cleanliness and safety problems (roaches, bed bugs, gnats, flies, black mold, bodily fluids on curtains, filthy bathrooms and dialysis area), combined with understaffing, neglectful nursing care, missed or delayed medical treatment, and unsafe incidents including falls, wound-care failures and at least one death that prompted an ombudsman and calls for legal action. At the same time, a meaningful subset of reviews describe positive experiences: attentive nurses, strong social services, effective PT/OT and good short-term rehab outcomes. This split suggests highly inconsistent performance across shifts, units, or time periods.
Care quality and clinical concerns are among the most frequent and serious themes. Many reviewers report slow or nearly nonexistent nursing responses to call lights, missed medications or medications given without explanation, poor wound care, turning and repositioning failures leading to pressure injuries, delayed diagnostics or procedures, and weight loss from inadequate feeding. There are explicit claims of unwitnessed falls and medical neglect; some reviewers say physicians and clinical leadership were ineffective. Positive clinical reports mainly center on therapy teams (PT/OT) performing well for rehabilitation and a handful of nurses or clinicians who delivered attentive care, but these positive notes are often contrasted directly against accounts of other staff failing to meet basic care standards.
Staffing, training, and workplace culture are another clear pattern. Reviewers frequently describe understaffing, reliance on agency staff, aides and CNAs who are overworked or absent, and morale problems (aides crying, bullying by supervisors, and alleged harassment). Several reports accuse management of ignoring complaints, being unresponsive or rude, or failing to correct persistent problems. Conversely, some reviews single out particular managers, social workers, or administrators as helpful and accessible; these named positives reinforce the variability in leadership performance and suggest pockets of competent management within an otherwise troubled environment.
Facility condition and infection control are repeatedly criticized. Multiple reviewers report pest infestations (roaches, bed bugs), mold, strong odors (urine, feces, smoke/“pot”), dirty linens and mattresses (including plastic mattresses without sheets), food crust on furniture, nonfunctional beds and wheelchairs, and trash in halls. Clinical spaces are described as cramped and unsanitary (the dialysis area is called small and filthy). These accounts raise substantial concerns about sanitation, infection prevention, and appropriate environmental maintenance for a healthcare setting.
Food service and resident amenities draw frequent complaints about poor quality and small portions (Styrofoam trays, old coffee, flat soda), leading in some cases to weight loss. That said, some reviewers reported acceptable or good meals, desserts they liked, and better-than-expected food, again underscoring uneven service. Activities, engagement and resident life are another inconsistent area: several reviewers say there are few or no activities and limited opportunities for socialization, while others praise available activities and staff who encourage participation.
Safety, privacy and property issues are common. Reviews mention overcrowded rooms (two or more roommates in tight quarters), lack of privacy in shared rooms, missing or stolen personal items and clothing, residents wearing others’ clothes, and inconsistent security practices. Some reviewers specifically cite safety risks from mixing patients with behavioral or psychiatric needs with other vulnerable residents. Transportation problems and dialysis logistics were raised in multiple entries.
Management responsiveness and administrative concerns are a recurring theme. Numerous reviewers state that complaints to administration produced no meaningful change, while others praise particular administrators or social services staff who checked in and resolved issues. Billing and insurance miscommunications are cited in at least one review, and a few reviewers suggest misclassification of stays (e.g., respite vs long-term) that affected care or billing. Several posts explicitly call for regulatory attention or facility shutdown based on cleanliness and neglect allegations.
Notable patterns: the extremes in these reviews point to major inconsistency in resident experience. Positive comments tend to focus on individual staff members or specific units, especially therapy and certain social workers or nurses. Negative comments are systemic—facility-wide sanitation failures, persistent understaffing, safety incidents, and administrative inaction—affecting many aspects of daily life and clinical care. The volume and severity of negative reports (including infection-control failures, alleged abuse/neglect, and reports of death linked to poor care) warrant close attention from families, patient advocates, and regulatory authorities.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families based on these review patterns: conduct an in-person tour at varied times (mealtimes, evenings, weekends), ask for unit-specific staffing ratios and infection-control protocols, check complaint and inspection records, speak directly with therapy and nursing staff about specific clinical needs, verify laundry and personal-item handling procedures, and monitor care closely after admission. If already a resident or family member, document incidents, escalate complaints in writing to facility leadership and the state long-term care ombudsman, and consider alternative placements if sanitation, safety, or clinical needs are not reliably met. The mixed reports indicate that while some staff and units can provide good care, there are persistent, serious concerns that should not be ignored.
