The reviews of Lemont Nursing and Rehabilitation Center present a highly polarized and inconsistent picture. The most consistent positive theme is the strength of the rehabilitation services: physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy receive near-universal praise. Many reviewers report rapid functional gains, successful short-stay discharges home, and therapists described as patient, professional, and invested in recovery. Specific therapy staff and leaders are frequently named and commended. When the facility is performing well, families cite effective therapy, coordinated plans of care, attentive rehab scheduling (including weekend sessions), and good communication from therapy and social work staff.
In stark contrast, nursing and direct-care experiences are widely variable and are the single biggest source of negative feedback. A large number of reviews allege neglectful nursing practices: missed medications, untimely or absent wound care, call lights not answered for hours, patients left in urine or soiled diapers, missed showers and poor hygiene, and delayed or missing pain medication. Several reviewers describe severe clinical lapses — untreated/exposed surgical wounds for days, bedsores developing or not being turned per protocol, catheter mismanagement leading to trauma, dehydration, and emergency room transfers. There are also numerous allegations of verbal abuse, mocking, rude or vulgar language by CNAs and nurses, and physical roughness during care. These issues are frequently tied to understaffing, high staff turnover, and reliance on agency nurses who are unfamiliar with residents’ histories.
Facility cleanliness and safety reports are mixed and sometimes extreme at both ends. Many reviewers describe the building as clean, comfortable, and well-maintained with an immaculate environment, attractive outdoor spaces, and functioning amenities (salon, ice cream parlor, courtyard). Housekeeping and maintenance staff are named positively in several reviews. Conversely, a sizable group of reviewers report deplorable conditions: dried urine, feces, vomit in rooms, persistent smells, soiled clothing left on residents, dirty bathrooms, and insufficient cleaning oversight. Safety concerns are also repeatedly raised: falls leading to fractures, wandering residents, unsecured access at entrances, missing or untracked patients, and poorly managed transfers and discharges.
Dining and nutrition emerge as another consistent pain point. Many reviewers describe food as cold, bland, overly processed (frozen pizza referenced multiple times), served on plastic plates, or otherwise low quality and unappetizing. There are also reports of missed meals, poor portioning, insufficient supplies (scarce potatoes, lacking hot beverages), and failure to accommodate pureed/soft diets properly. A minority report improvements with a new chef and better menus, indicating variability over time and by dining staff.
Management, administration, and system-level problems recur across reviews. Several accounts praise specific administrators, the admissions director, or social work staff for helpfulness and clear communication. However, many more reviews criticize management for lack of follow-through, rude or unhelpful front-desk personnel, poor handling of complaints, and decisions driven by filling beds rather than clinical quality. Billing disputes, unexpected outstanding balances, and allegations of improper discharges or insurer-driven removals are also mentioned. Reviewers frequently tie many quality issues back to staffing and budget choices made by leadership, reporting low morale among staff and unpaid or altered payroll for employees.
A pattern of inconsistent experience by wing/floor and by shift appears in multiple reports: some wings and the first floor are repeatedly described as attentive and familiar with residents, while other floors (e.g., second floor, Redwood wing) receive complaints about neglect and poor oversight. Weekend coverage, night shifts, and reliance on agency staff are specific times when negative incidents are said to increase. This heterogeneity suggests that quality may depend heavily on which staff are on duty and the specific unit where a resident is placed.
Serious clinical and safety allegations appear frequently enough to be notable: emergency room visits attributed to neglect, state/Medicare citations referenced by some reviewers, and claims of severe dehydration or trauma from missed care. These are not isolated “service” complaints but involve potential patient harm. At the same time, many families explicitly report peace of mind, dignified care, and excellent outcomes — often due to the therapy teams, certain named nurses or CNAs, or effective management during particular stays.
In sum, the reviews reflect a facility that can deliver outstanding rehabilitative care and has pockets of excellent, compassionate staff and clean, attractive spaces — but also exhibits significant, recurring failures in nursing care, hygiene, nutrition, safety, and management consistency. The dominant recommendation across reviewers is to exercise caution: if considering Lemont, visit the specific unit, ask about staffing levels and wound/medication protocols, meet the nurses/CNAs who will provide direct care, and monitor for consistency over time. The extreme variability in experiences — from exemplary rehab and attentive staff to reports of neglect, abuse, and serious clinical lapses — is the most important pattern for families and referral sources to weigh when evaluating this facility.
