Overall sentiment: The reviews show a highly polarized and inconsistent picture of Community Nursing and Rehabilitation. Many reviewers describe the facility in glowing terms — warm, home-like, staffed by compassionate caregivers, with good therapy teams, enjoyable activities, and satisfying meals. At the same time, a substantial number of reviews detail serious deficiencies including neglect, medication errors, theft, poor sanitation, and safety concerns. The aggregate impression is of a facility with pockets of very good care and programming but also recurring and severe breakdowns in basic nursing care, security, and cleanliness. Experiences appear to vary widely by unit, shift, time period, or administrative leadership.
Care quality and clinical issues: Care quality is the most divisive theme. Numerous reviewers praise specific nurses, CNAs, and therapists who are patient, skilled and instrumental in successful rehab-to-home discharges. Conversely, multiple reports describe delayed nurse response times, residents left in urine, missed showers, prolonged failure to supply mobility aids, medication errors (including meds left on the floor), and alleged clinical negligence leading to wound infections, hospitalization, or decline in mobility. There are also extremely serious allegations of physical abuse, threats, lying by staff, and incidents that made family members fear for their loved ones. This mixture of positive and alarming accounts suggests uneven clinical oversight and inconsistent adherence to basic care protocols.
Therapy and rehab services: Reviews specifically about therapy are mixed but again polarized. Several reviews single out an “incredible” therapy staff that helped residents regain function and return home, indicating that rehabilitation programming can be a strong point. However, other reviewers report minimal therapy (e.g., only once a week or no PT/OT provided), which is insufficient for meaningful recovery. These divergent reports indicate variability in therapy availability and intensity — likely dependent on staffing levels, payer mix, or changing management priorities.
Staffing, communication and management: Numerous reviews praise staff friendliness, teamwork, and a welcoming receptionist; others describe rude, unprofessional, or neglectful employees. There are repeated complaints about poor communication: phone lines that do not answer, inability to leave voicemails, abrupt phone hang-ups, and dismissive responses when families raise concerns. Several reviewers mention short-staffing, staff burnout, or toxic management practices (including firing via text), while others report visible, earnest management efforts to turn the place around and improvements under new leadership. This indicates a transitional environment where improvements may be underway but have not yet resolved systemic problems for all residents.
Safety, security and property concerns: Safety and security are frequent concerns. Reviews allege theft of money and belongings, reports of door codes being handed out or otherwise mismanaged, and at least one account of a roommate in the facility with personal hygiene and lice issues. Maintenance problems are consistently mentioned — run-down areas, unpleasant odors (notably urine), sinks falling off walls — which contribute both to perceptions of poor care and to real infection-control risks. Several reviewers explicitly said the facility felt unsafe or insecure for residents.
Cleanliness, infection control and environment: Cleanliness reports are mixed: many families praised housekeeping and a clean smell, while others repeatedly reported strong urine odor, soiled rooms, lice, feces, and inadequate cleaning. Some accounts suggest a recent improvement in cleanliness under new leadership, but the number and severity of negative reports about odors, infection and unclean rooms is notable and a major red flag for long-term or short-term placement decisions.
Dining, activities and resident life: Activities, crafts, and programs are frequently mentioned positively; several reviewers describe an active social calendar and staff who make residents feel at home. Food receives both praise ("very good food," snacks available daily) and criticism ("horrible food"). Overall, when staffing and leadership are functioning well, social programming appears to be an asset; when staffing is strained, these services suffer or become inconsistent.
Allegations about reviews and transparency: Multiple reviewers raised concerns about misleading five-star ratings and alleged suppression of negative reviews. There are also reports of families being banned or treated poorly when they raised concerns. These comments point to potential transparency issues and should prompt external verification (state inspection reports, complaint histories) by prospective families.
Patterns and likely causes: The pattern across reviews suggests significant variability over time and between units or shifts. Several reviewers explicitly mention recent leadership changes and positive cultural shifts, while others recount persistent, unresolved problems. This variability is consistent with a facility undergoing transition: pockets of excellence (particularly therapy and some nursing staff) coexist with systemic issues such as understaffing, poor maintenance, and lapses in safety and sanitation. Where management is actively addressing problems, reviewers note improvements; where turnover or toxic management exists, negative outcomes are more likely.
Practical takeaways: The facility has clear strengths — compassionate staff members, an effective therapy team in some cases, welcoming common areas, and active programming — but also substantial, recurring weaknesses that have led to serious negative outcomes for residents in multiple accounts. Prospective residents and families should exercise caution: verify current staffing levels, ask for recent state inspection and complaint records, tour the specific unit at different times of day, inquire about medication administration protocols and theft prevention, confirm therapy frequency and staffing, and check recent references from current resident families. If considering short-term rehab, confirm the specific therapists and disciplines who will provide care and get commitments in writing about frequency. If placing someone long-term, insist on transparency about incident reporting, infection control policies, and management turnover.
Conclusion: Community Nursing and Rehabilitation appears to be a facility in flux — capable of providing excellent, compassionate care in many cases but also prone to significant, sometimes dangerous lapses. Reviewers’ experiences are polarized, making it essential for families to undertake careful, up-to-date due diligence rather than rely solely on aggregate star ratings. The decision to use this facility should be made only after direct verification of the current leadership, staffing, cleanliness, medication safety, security protocols, and therapy availability.
