The reviews present a sharply mixed and polarized picture of Sharon Healthcare Elms with both notable improvements and very serious safety and quality concerns. On the positive side, several reviewers mention that the facility has made headway: new nursing staff have been brought in, kitchen food has improved, and additional hands-on help is reported. Many reviewers specifically praise individual nurses and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) for providing attentive care and for accommodating family contact by holding phones for relatives who cannot be present. Some families experience weekly in-person visits (noting that these visits can be weather-dependent) and describe the atmosphere as nice or homey. These comments suggest that parts of the caregiving team and certain operational areas are working well or are improving over time.
However, the negative comments are substantial and, critically, include allegations of neglect and safety failures. Multiple summaries report understaffing and neglectful staff behavior, including a severe report that a resident died choking and broader mentions of choking risk and problems with choking. Reviewers explicitly note that the facility was fined $50,000 for neglect, which corroborates regulatory action and elevates these concerns beyond isolated complaints. Additional operational failures are cited such as a lack of basic supplies for CNAs (for example, wipes), broken or unreliable phone service that hinders family communication, and restrictions on visits that leave out-of-town relatives unable to spend time with loved ones. Several reviewers use strong language—calling the place disgusting or warning others not to send family members—indicating deep distress and distrust among some family members.
Facility cleanliness and hygiene are recurring issues in the negative comments: words like "disgusting" and "poor hygiene" appear, and some reviewers describe the place as very bad. These hygiene complaints, combined with understaffing and supply shortages, raise red flags about infection control, resident comfort, and day-to-day care routines. The reports of inconsistent staff quality—some reviewers praising caregivers while others describe staff as "terrible"—suggest variability in training, supervision, or staffing stability. The mix of both very positive and very negative staff comments points to uneven performance across shifts or units rather than a uniformly poor or uniformly excellent operation.
Visitation and communication are another recurring theme with mixed signals: while staff sometimes help by holding phones for family calls, other reviewers report that phones don't work and that they cannot visit loved ones. The mention of visits being "weather dependent" suggests limited outdoor visitation options or policies that restrict access under certain conditions, which can be particularly painful for out-of-town families who want to spend final days with loved ones. These communication barriers compound emotional distress when families already have safety concerns.
Overall sentiment is highly divided. There is credible positive feedback about recent improvements, specific staff members, and better dining. But the presence of severe allegations—choking-related death, regulatory fine for neglect, ongoing understaffing, supply shortages, hygiene problems, and disrupted family contact—constitutes significant and recurring red flags. For prospective residents or families, the pattern in these reviews suggests that while some areas have improved and some staff provide excellent care, there remain urgent, systemic concerns about safety, staffing, and cleanliness that warrant careful, direct inquiry with the facility and review of official inspection reports before making placement decisions.
