Overall sentiment across reviews for Goldwater Care Princeton is highly polarized, with strong, repeated praise for rehabilitation services and many individual staff members contrasted by serious and recurring allegations of neglect, abuse, and facility cleanliness problems. Multiple reviewers describe the therapy team as "best in the industry," citing outstanding physical therapy, knowledgeable therapists, and an effective rehab-to-home program that helped patients regain independence. For families seeking intensive rehabilitation and a structured path back to home, these consistently positive testimonials around therapy and rehab outcomes are a major strength.
At the same time, a substantial subset of reviews raises alarm about resident safety and basic standards of care. Several reviews allege extreme short-staffing that resulted in residents being left lying for extended periods, not being taken to the bathroom, and otherwise having basic needs unmet. Some reviewers reference video evidence and social-media posts (TikTok) documenting mistreatment, and there are calls from reviewers for responsible staff to be fired, for license revocation, and even for the facility to be shut down. These are serious claims that indicate either episodic or systemic failures in supervision, staffing, and accountability, and they sharply contrast with many other accounts praising the same facility.
Staffing and staff quality are described inconsistently: many reviews emphasize compassionate, attentive, and professional CNAs, nurses, therapists, housekeeping, maintenance, kitchen, and administrative staff. Reviewers recount staff "going above and beyond," being friendly and responsive, and creating a warm, home-like atmosphere. Several long-term residents and families explicitly stated they would not want to be anywhere else because of the people who care for residents. Conversely, other reviews describe unprofessional behavior including yelling at an elderly resident and assert that a staffing overhaul is needed. This juxtaposition suggests variable experiences that may depend on shift, unit, or recent staffing changes.
Facility condition and cleanliness emerge as repeated concerns. Multiple reviewers note the building is older and in need of updates. Complaints include persistent urine or other bad odors, bathrooms that are not clean, and toilets lacking handrails — items that directly affect dignity and safety. One specific comfort/safety complaint is that an air conditioner unit was positioned right next to a patient’s bed. While maintenance staff receive praise for quick responses to requests in some reviews, housekeeping and infection-control standards appear inconsistent based on the negative comments.
Management and corporate oversight are another mixed area. Some reviews praise the administrator and office staff as professional and communicative, and they highlight positive interactions with kitchen, housekeeping, and maintenance teams. Other reviews criticize corporate compliance processes as inadequate and cite perceived excuses rather than meaningful accountability when incidents occur. Several reviewers explicitly call for greater transparency and disciplinary action for staff implicated in abuse or neglect. There are also comments noting a lack of recognition for valued staff members, which could impact morale.
Dining and activities are generally viewed positively but not without caveats: food quality is described as "good most of the time," and activities are highlighted as fun and engaging, contributing to residents feeling at home. These programmatic strengths reinforce the reports of a welcoming culture in many parts of the facility.
Patterns and practical implications: the most consistent positive pattern is excellence in therapy/rehab and many accounts of compassionate direct caregivers. The most consistent negative patterns are serious safety allegations (neglect and abuse), cleanliness/odor issues, and an aging physical plant. Taken together, these patterns indicate that while Goldwater Care Princeton can deliver excellent rehabilitative care and has staff who are highly committed, there are significant, recurring concerns that may reflect staffing shortages, inconsistent training or supervision, and facility maintenance deficits.
Recommendations based on the reviews: prospective residents and families should verify current licensing and any incident reports, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, request recent inspection results, and tour the facility (including bathrooms and patient rooms) to assess cleanliness. If considering the facility for short-term rehab, weigh the strong therapy reputation against the reported inconsistency in basic nursing care and environmental cleanliness. For long-term placement, given the severity of some allegations, families should exercise added caution, monitor care closely, and maintain open lines of communication with management. For the facility, reviewers' comments suggest priorities should be addressing staffing adequacy and training, improving housekeeping and bathroom safety (handrails), updating facility infrastructure, and demonstrating transparent, timely accountability when incidents occur to rebuild trust.
