Overall sentiment in the reviews for BRIA of Westmont is highly polarized, ranging from glowing endorsements to severe criticisms. A substantial subset of reviewers report outstanding rehabilitation outcomes, exceptional therapy teams, and compassionate individual caregivers, while another sizable group raises serious concerns about cleanliness, staffing, safety, and management responsiveness. The dominant pattern is that rehabilitation and therapy services (especially aquatic therapy) are consistently praised, whereas long-term nursing care and night-shift coverage attract the bulk of negative reports.
Care quality: Therapy and rehabilitation are the facility's most frequently lauded strengths. Multiple reviewers describe top-notch physical and occupational therapy, with several naming specific clinicians (including a CRNA and nurses) who went above and beyond. Aqua therapy and the therapy pool receive repeated favorable mention; many families attribute meaningful functional improvements and successful discharges home to the therapy program. By contrast, nursing care reviews are mixed to negative in many accounts. Several reviewers describe attentive, kind nurses and aides, but an equal or larger number recount delayed responses to call lights, medication errors, missed rounds, patients left wet or unattended, and insufficient assistance for toileting or mobilizing. There are reports of wound/infection issues (UTIs, pneumonia) and claims that some residents deteriorated or were rehospitalized after their stay.
Staffing and training: Understaffing is a pervasive theme. Numerous reviews describe short-staffed shifts, aides and nurses overwhelmed with large patient loads, and inconsistent presence of nursing staff—particularly at night. This ties directly to many of the adverse reports: delayed emergency responses, longer wait times for assistance, missed medication or therapy sessions, and inadequate supervision during meals. Several reviewers allege inadequate training for CNAs and aides, with resulting safety and care quality problems. A few reviews accuse staff of serious misconduct (theft, substance use or drinking on shift, vaping/smoking or using drugs), which, if accurate, would represent high-risk behavior affecting resident safety. Several reviewers also flagged apparent systemic problems such as unsecured narcotics access and regulatory citations (IJ tags and IDPH safety/care concerns were mentioned by some families).
Safety and adverse incidents: Multiple reviewers describe alarming safety incidents that should be considered red flags by prospective families. These include reports of a choking event in memory care, delayed or allegedly inadequate CPR response, delayed hospital transfers requiring 911 intervention, falls with injuries, and at least one death where family members felt communication and accountability were lacking. There are also reports of equipment failures (a life vest battery dying) and delayed suctioning. Many reviewers framed these as examples of negligence or poor supervision, and several indicated that family members felt the staff did not notify them promptly or attempted to downplay or cover up incidents.
Cleanliness, infection control, and environment: Reviews are contradictory regarding facility cleanliness. A notable set of reviewers praise the facility as clean, modern, and hotel-like with well-kept long-term care floors, spotless rooms, and pleasant common areas. Conversely, another strong cluster of reviews alleges unclean conditions: foul smells, dirty urinals and rooms, mold on tubing, webs and dirt accumulating on heating systems, soiled clothing left on residents, and delayed cleaning after vomiting. Infection-control concerns were raised, including COVID spread and other reported infections. These conflicting experiences may reflect variability between units, shifts, or time periods, but the presence of multiple serious hygiene complaints warrants attention.
Dining and amenities: The facility's amenities (pool, bistro, outdoor areas) are frequently praised, and several reviewers appreciated hotel-like accommodations and a welcoming reception. However, dining is a recurrent weakness—many reviewers describe meals as bland, disgusting, or inedible, with food left in rooms or trays delivered incorrectly. Some reports mention missing menus or lack of alternatives when the main meal was refused. Positive mentions of the bistro and certain dining experiences do appear, but the balance of comments suggests dining quality is inconsistent and often a point of dissatisfaction.
Management, communication, and administration: Communication and management responsiveness show a wide variance. Some families commend admissions staff, directors, and certain administrators for being helpful, communicative, and proactive. Others describe administrators as unresponsive, dismissive, or absent, with some alleging regulatory cover-ups, discharge notices sent without family notification, illegible or unhelpful emails, and refusal to reimburse lost items. Several reviews mention high leadership turnover and a scheduling system perceived as dishonest. Overall, poor family communication—failure to return phone calls, delayed incident notification, and inconsistent updates—emerges repeatedly as a top complaint.
Notable patterns and credibility considerations: The reviews clearly form two camps. One camp describes BRIA of Westmont as a state-of-the-art rehab facility with exceptional therapy, great outcomes, and caring staff. The other camp reports serious problems with nursing care, safety, cleanliness, and management. Several named positives (specific staff who provided excellent care) and repeated therapy praise lend credibility to the positive accounts. Conversely, repeated and specific allegations—delays in emergency response, medication errors, reports of substance use on shift, theft, and regulatory issues—constitute serious red flags mentioned by multiple reviewers. Because both strong praise and strong criticism recur, prospective residents and families should assume variability by unit, shift, and the particular team assigned to a resident.
Implications for families and recommendations: Based on the reviews, BRIA of Westmont may offer outstanding rehabilitation services but presents potential risks in long-term nursing care depending on staffing and shift coverage. Families considering this facility should: ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and night coverage; tour the specific unit and observe cleanliness; inquire about emergency response protocols, narcotics security, and resuscitation equipment availability; request information on how the facility notifies families about incidents; verify how infection control is managed; discuss meal options and accommodations for dietary needs; and confirm the names of key clinical staff and therapy schedules. When a resident is admitted, maintain proactive communication with staff, document any incidents, and escalate promptly to administration or regulatory bodies if safety or care concerns arise.
In sum, BRIA of Westmont presents a mix of high-quality rehabilitation and therapy services alongside recurring, serious complaints about nursing care, staffing, safety, cleanliness, and management responsiveness. The facility appears capable of excellent outcomes for some residents—especially those focused on short-term rehab—but families of long-term or high-acuity residents should perform careful due diligence and monitor care closely if they choose this facility.
