Overall impression: Reviews for Sandwich Living and Rehab Center are highly polarized. A substantial number of reviewers convey strong appreciation for individual caregivers, nurses, and rehabilitation staff — describing them as caring, tireless, and compassionate. Several reviews describe the facility as homey, hospitable, well-run, and recommend it for families who need skilled care; activities, daily groups, and an attentive staff are repeatedly listed as positives. Conversely, an equally loud set of reviews details severe problems: filthy conditions, safety hazards, neglect, and an apparently unresponsive or unprofessional administration. This sharp split suggests great inconsistency in resident experience, with outcomes strongly dependent on timing, specific staff on duty, and possibly individual units or rooms within the facility.
Care quality and staffing: Many reviewers explicitly praise individual aides and nurses for providing compassionate, personalized care, bathing and feeding residents, and spending time with them — several people describe a high caregiver-to-resident ratio and personal attention. Skilled nursing, rehab services, and hospice involvement are also mentioned positively. However, multiple accounts report neglectful situations: residents left alone, dementia patients left unprotected, incidents of falls and injuries without adequate staff response, and in one case neglect asserted after a resident's death. There are repeated comments about understaffing, seasonal or temporary staff, and claims that some staff are untrained or ill-equipped. The result is pronounced variability: where some families experienced exemplary hands-on care, others experienced what they regarded as dangerous neglect.
Facility condition and safety: Reviewers disagree markedly about cleanliness and maintenance. Positive reviews describe the building as neat, clean, well-kept, and attractive with good grounds; negative reviews describe it as filthy, smelling of urine, with broken furniture, broken bathroom cabinet doors, nonfunctional lights, beds made of PVC pipe, and a generally dangerous environment. Serious safety and security concerns arise in several negative summaries: lack of sign-in or ID checks, doors left open, after-hours access without supervision, and unlocked/unsupervised areas. These security lapses combined with maintenance issues create the most acute concerns for families worried about vulnerable residents, particularly those with dementia or mobility limitations.
Management and administration: Comments about management are similarly split. Some reviewers report responsive administration that listens to concerns; others accuse management of being unprofessional, on “power trips,” or outright unresponsive. Several reviewers asked for advocacy on behalf of residents to obtain good care, implying families must be active and persistent to secure acceptable service. There are also allegations of unresolved complaints elevated to state authorities and calls from some reviewers for regulatory intervention or closure of the facility. Administrative shortcomings extend to billing/operations in at least one report (EMS/ER billing not paid), adding to concerns about organizational reliability.
Dining, activities, and services: Positive remarks note numerous activities, daily groups, and a social environment that treats residents like family. Dining is described as meals served on trays with resident choices; however, some reviewers noted logistical issues such as early wake-up times, long breakfast waits, and a busy schedule that can affect mealtime timing. Clinical service limitations are noted explicitly (no on-site dialysis), which is important for residents with that specific need.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. Many families encountered compassionate, competent caregivers and a supportive environment; many others experienced conditions they characterized as neglectful, unsafe, or unsanitary. These divergent reports point to variability by shift, staff members, or perhaps specific wings/units. Given the severity of the negative allegations (unsafe conditions, security lapses, neglect, and poor maintenance), prospective residents and families should approach the facility with caution: arrange multiple visits at different times, ask about staffing levels and turnover, inspect rooms and common areas for cleanliness and functioning equipment, verify security and sign-in policies, review state inspection reports and complaint histories, and confirm the facility’s ability to meet specific clinical needs (e.g., dialysis). The mixed reviews make it essential to validate current conditions rather than rely on any single review — the risk/reward profile appears highly dependent on current management practices and on-the-ground staffing.
