Overall sentiment about Central Nursing Home is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial group of reviewers praise specific staff members, therapy services, and the activities program, while an equally vocal set of reviewers report serious sanitation, safety, and management problems. The reviews present a pattern of stark inconsistency — many families describe compassionate, skilled caregivers and effective rehabilitation, yet others describe neglect, infestation, and unprofessional management. Because these contrasting reports repeat across many reviews, the facility appears to vary significantly by unit, shift, or time period rather than providing uniformly reliable care.
Care quality: Several reviews commend nursing and therapy teams for good clinical outcomes including wound care, physical therapy, and measurable resident improvements such as weight gain and better mobility. Multiple reports single out individual nurses and therapists as caring and effective. Contrastingly, other reviews document severe lapses in basic care: residents reportedly left unbathed, left in soiled linens or feces, found dehydrated or malnourished and subsequently hospitalized, and in some cases involved in accidents attributed to neglect. These serious clinical safety concerns (malnutrition, dehydration, infections, and missed medication) are repeated often enough to be a major red flag and suggest uneven standards of clinical oversight.
Staff and interpersonal conduct: A recurring theme is bifurcation of staff behavior. Many reviewers describe CNAs, nurses, social workers, and therapists as kind, compassionate, and attentive, with some long-tenured staff praised for dedication and family-like attitudes. However, there are numerous and severe complaints about rudeness, unprofessional conduct, and even retaliatory behavior by administrative staff — examples include screaming at family members, hanging up phone calls, refusing to provide medication information, and reports of an unprofessional owner/administrator. These complaints about management hostility and lack of transparency exacerbate families' distress when clinical or facility problems arise.
Facilities, cleanliness, and pest control: Facility conditions are another major area of divergence. Some reviewers find the building clean and well-kept and note that housekeeping cleans daily. Others report pervasive filth: roaches, bed bugs, mice, strong odors, sticky and grimy rooms on arrival, missing basic supplies (soap, linens), and evidence of trays or waste left for days. Multiple reviewers explicitly called for state intervention or closure, and some mention state reprimands. This pattern — reports of both clean units and severely unsanitary units — points to inconsistent housekeeping, pest control, and infection-control practices that can vary by wing or staffing level.
Dining and nutrition: Dining feedback is mixed but leans negative in the more troubling reports. Positive comments note healthy or enjoyable meals in some instances. Negative comments focus on undercooked food, meals that appear to be reheated or microwaved, incorrectly delivered trays, improper portioning for therapeutic diets, and instances of food trays being left unattended for long periods. Given the complaints about malnutrition and dehydration in some residents, dietary handling and monitoring are important areas of concern.
Activities and social programming: The activities department receives generally strong praise from many reviewers, with specific mentions of a variety of engaging programs — cash bingo, karaoke, themed parties, monthly birthday celebrations, raffles, and creative games. Some reviewers say activities keep residents busy and uplifted. However, a minority of reviews say adult programs are lacking or that activities staff can be impatient. Overall, activities appear to be a relative strength but again may be unevenly provided.
Management, communication, and oversight: Management reviews are highly mixed. A number of families appreciated a hands-on director and responsive social workers who communicate with families. Conversely, other reviewers describe poor leadership, smug or defensive administrators, refusal to provide medication lists, and retaliation against complaints. Several reviews mention long waits for transportation and poor responsiveness to family concerns. Additionally, reports of state inspections and reprimands indicate regulatory attention. The combination of praise for some administrators and severe criticism for others supports the pattern of inconsistent leadership and quality control.
Notable patterns and risk areas: The most alarming and frequently repeated patterns are (1) pest infestations and unsanitary conditions; (2) neglect-related clinical harms such as dehydration/malnutrition and poor hygiene; and (3) hostile or obstructive management behavior when concerns are raised. Offsetting these are consistent reports that direct care staff and therapy teams are capable and compassionate in many cases. The variability suggests that prospective residents and families should expect highly variable experiences and should investigate current conditions closely.
Recommendations for families considering this facility: Because the reviews are so inconsistent, families should conduct an in-person, time-varied tour (visit mornings, evenings, and weekends), speak directly with current residents and families, request recent state inspection reports and pest-control documentation, verify staffing ratios and turnover, ask for details about medication management and incident reporting, and meet the director and social worker who would oversee the resident's care. If possible, check the specific unit and room rather than relying on general impressions, since cleanliness and care appear to differ markedly by unit or shift. Finally, verify how complaints are handled, whether there is an active resident council, and whether there are recent documented improvements or ongoing corrective actions.
