Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward significant concern. Multiple reviewers report serious lapses in clinical care and safety—ranging from medication errors and refusal to follow physician orders to delayed recognition of pneumonia and alleged resultant deaths. At the same time, numerous reviewers single out individual staff members, therapy services, and parts of the facility that provide genuinely good care and meaningful improvement for certain residents. This creates a pattern of pronounced inconsistency: some residents appear to receive excellent, attentive care and effective rehabilitation, while others experience neglect, poor hygiene, and potential harm.
Care quality and clinical concerns are among the most frequently cited negative themes. Several reviews allege that nurses or CNAs failed to administer medications, ignored physicians' wound-care orders, or otherwise provided inadequate nursing care. There are multiple reports of bedsores, severe weight loss, residents described as "skin and bones," and allegations that some residents were not fed. Some families reported missed or mixed-up medications (including wrong medications being given to roommates). At least one review specifically links delayed recognition and treatment of pneumonia to a resident's death. Conversely, other reviewers describe noticeable medical improvement, restored color and mobility, and praise for specific clinical staff such as a wound care nurse and physical therapists. This stark contrast suggests inconsistent clinical protocols, supervision, and execution across shifts or units.
Staff behavior and management present another clear divide. Several reviews describe staff as uncaring, rude, or even racist, and one review alleges the Director of Nursing was an alcoholic and the administrator insincere. There are accounts of staff arguing with families, preventing family contact with residents, and using intimidation. At the same time, other reviews highlight compassionate individuals and effective managers: CNAs like Lynne, maintenance staff like Mike, an engaged HR person (Monica), and a proactive manager (Pam) receive strong praise. These conflicting accounts point to uneven staff training, morale, and leadership—where pockets of good practice exist but are not reliably system-wide.
Operational and safety issues are also prominent. Short-staffing is repeatedly mentioned, particularly at night, leading to long waits for assistance, missed rounds, residents being awakened very early, and inadequate documentation or communication. Reviewers report poor responsiveness to phone calls and difficulties obtaining accurate medical records. Several accounts describe lost clothing, insufficient clean linens, and urine odors or urine-soaked bedding, indicating laundry and housekeeping problems. Serious environmental concerns include allegations of rats in the kitchen and generally poor kitchen cleanliness, which raises infection-control worries. There are also complaints about excessive smoking on the premises and instances of residents being left unattended or outside—both safety hazards.
Dining and facility amenities receive mixed reviews. A number of reviewers praise the dietary department for offering many choices, making special requests, and delivering satisfactory meals for some residents. Others describe the food as disgusting, old or unappetizing (example: old fried okra), served cold or off a plate, overpriced, or nutritionally inadequate. Facility cleanliness is similarly mixed: some reviewers describe the building as very clean with private bathrooms and a pleasant environment, while others describe filthy rooms and poor bathing care. The building is noted as older by some reviewers, which may factor into the variability of experience.
Administrative, billing, and documentation complaints are common and troubling. Several reviewers report billing and insurance disputes, with at least one alleging improper handling of disability checks. Others note inaccurate or outdated medical records (for example, incorrect fracture side) and difficulty contacting staff or getting timely communication about residents' conditions. These issues compound clinical and safety concerns because they impede oversight, family involvement, and continuity of care.
In summary, the reviews portray Granite Nursing & Rehab LLC as a facility with substantial variability in the quality of care. Positive reports highlight compassionate individual caregivers, helpful maintenance and dietary staff, and effective rehabilitation services that have restored function and well-being for some residents. However, many other reviews recount alarming problems—clinical neglect, medication errors, hygiene and pest issues, safety lapses, poor communication, and inconsistent management—that in several cases reportedly resulted in severe harm. The dominant takeaway is inconsistency: while pockets of good practice exist and some staff members are highly praised, systemic issues in staffing, clinical oversight, sanitation, and administration are repeatedly reported and merit attention. Families considering placement should weigh these mixed reports carefully, and the facility appears to require sustained corrective action to address the recurrent themes of neglect, safety, and communication failures documented by multiple reviewers.
