Overall sentiment about The Loft Rehabilitation & Nursing of Normal is deeply mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers describe warm, compassionate caregivers, effective therapy, clean units, and a supportive, family‑like atmosphere; these reviews credit individual staff members, praise the rehab program and activities, and say residents were treated with dignity. At the same time, an equally large and vocal group reports serious and recurring problems: neglect (including failure to assist residents with eating and grooming), unsanitary conditions (strong urine and feces odors, patients left in soiled linens or sitting in urine), late or cold meals, and care lapses that they describe as endangering resident safety. The intensity of the negative reports — including malnutrition, falls, bruises, missed colostomy care, and even deaths or hospitalizations attributed by families to facility care — is a major pattern that cannot be ignored.
Care quality and staffing: The reviews make clear that the facility’s care consistency is highly variable. Many families highlight excellent nurses, CNAs, and therapists who go above and beyond, and multiple reviewers single out specific employees for outstanding care. However, a recurring theme is understaffing, frequent turnover, and heavy reliance on agency staff, which reviewers say leads to inconsistent care, poor training, and lack of accountability. Several reviews describe CNAs walking away, ignoring calls for assistance, being on their phones, or demonstrating unprofessional behavior (eye‑rolling, not wearing masks), while other reviewers report attentive, compassionate staff. This split suggests pockets of high performance undermined by systemic staffing and supervision problems.
Safety and clinical concerns: Numerous reviews report safety issues — falls without proper assistance or fall‑prevention measures (e.g., no safety socks), missed or incorrect medications, therapy that either is very effective or not scheduled/observed, and alarming examples such as malnutrition and hygiene neglect. Families describe situations where an outside physician had to intervene because facility clinicians were perceived as insufficient or dishonest. There are also several accounts of being discharged or “kicked out” after Medicare days were used and difficulty obtaining Medicaid placements, raising concerns about care driven by payment rather than need.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Descriptions of the physical environment are mixed. Some reviewers say rooms are clean, odor‑free, and well maintained, with pleasant grounds and outdoor walking areas. Others describe an outdated 1980s facility with sticky floors, dirty bathrooms, urine smells, furniture stains, drawers that won’t close, lunch trays left for hours, and unshoveled sidewalks. These opposing reports suggest variability by unit or by point in time; multiple complaints about hygiene and odor are frequent enough to indicate an ongoing issue in at least parts of the building.
Dining and therapy: Dining experience is another split area. Several reviewers note acceptable meals, occasional delicious treats, and praise for kitchen staff and the kitchen manager. Contrasting reports accuse the facility of terrible, cold food and late service. Therapy also receives polarized feedback — many families report excellent, daily therapy that sped recovery and felt individualized, while other families say therapy was understaffed, not scheduled, or did not include ambulation as promised. Social Services and therapy departments are called “deplorable” by some, while others say therapy was amazing — again pointing to inconsistent delivery.
Management, communication, and culture: A strong theme among negative reviews is poor management, lack of transparency, and dismissive or rude administration. Families describe problems getting concerns addressed, blaming management for relying on cheaper or temporary staff, and accusing the facility of being financially motivated in placement and discharge decisions. Conversely, positive reviewers describe a village atmosphere, cohesive teams, and staff who take pride in caregiving. Several reviews also indicate a change for the worse after a name change or administrative transition, suggesting recent operational shifts may have impacted quality.
Notable patterns and risks: The most concerning patterns are repeated reports of neglect (missed feeding and hygiene), safety lapses (falls and inadequate supervision), and infection/cleanliness problems (strong odors, soiled linens). These reports come with concrete examples (e.g., patient sitting in urine/feces, lunch trays left by beds, colostomy care unaddressed) that families say led to medical decline. At the same time, there are consistent mentions of standout staff and effective rehabilitation outcomes for other residents, indicating the facility has capable personnel and programs that function well at times.
Bottom line and recommendations: Reviews indicate The Loft can provide excellent, compassionate care and effective rehab for some residents, largely driven by committed individual staff and therapy teams. However, the volume and severity of negative reports — particularly those involving neglect, hygiene, safety, and management responsiveness — raise significant red flags. Families touring or considering placement should perform thorough, specific checks: ask about staff‑to‑resident ratios and agency usage, observe meal times and infection control, request the daily therapy schedule and participation rates, review recent state inspection reports and complaint histories, meet unit staff and supervisors, and clarify discharge/Medicare/Medicaid policies. Given the polarized experiences, decisions should be based on up‑to‑date, in‑person observations and careful verification of how the facility handles supervision, hygiene, medication management, and family communication.
