These reviews present a polarized and inconsistent portrait of Majestic Care of Southport (Offers In-House Hemo Dialysis). A notable portion of reviewers praise the facility’s therapy program, certain nursing teams, and a handful of named staff who provided compassionate, competent care. Multiple families credit the therapy department (PT/OT) with helping residents return home and specifically single out teams, wings (for example the B wing), and individuals such as Broc Bennett, Shayna, Tonya, and others for exceptional support. Positive mentions include meaningful activities and events, a therapy dog mascot, social services that help coordinate care, and the advantage of in-house hemodialysis for residents needing it. Several reviewers also report recent improvements under new leadership or an executive director and describe areas that feel clean, organized, and home-like.
However, a large and recurring cluster of negative reports highlights serious systemic issues. The most frequent concerns are chronic understaffing and neglect: reviewers cite long waits for assistance, ignored call lights, residents left in wet or soiled garments, missed baths, delayed medication administration, and even missed or mishandled dialysis on occasion. Multiple reviews describe unsanitary conditions — dirty restrooms, bad smells, alleged bed bugs, nonfunctional bathroom fixtures, and leaks — and an overall sense of poor maintenance (outdated furniture, overgrown grounds, an old vehicle in the parking lot). These maintenance and hygiene problems are sometimes tied directly to compromised patient safety (falls, risk of pressure wounds) and family distress.
Safety and abuse allegations are serious themes in the negative reviews. Some accounts allege extreme neglect (left in feces for hours, not repositioned), with a few describing delayed oxygen, sexual misconduct by staff, or other incidents leading to hospital transfers. Whether isolated or indicative of broader patterns, these reports raise urgent concerns about clinical oversight and regulatory attention. Several reviewers explicitly called for investigation or closure. There are also repeated mentions of theft of belongings, disrespectful or racially biased staff interactions, and poor complaint follow-up — all contributing to a perception among many families that leadership fails to resolve problems effectively.
Food and dining produce mixed but often negative feedback. Many reviewers complain that meals are unappetizing, sloppy, or not appropriate for special diets (e.g., diabetic meals). Others report missed meal deliveries and long cafeteria delays (two-hour lunch delays). Conversely, some families praise the cafeteria staff and indicate that certain meals are excellent, showing that dining quality is uneven between shifts or time periods. Activities and events likewise draw mixed commentary: organized events such as Easter egg hunts and trunk-or-treats were enjoyed and appreciated by some families, while other reviewers describe a lack of activities, residents confined to rooms, and a depressing atmosphere in parts of the facility.
Management, administration, and communication are recurring complaint areas. Reported problems include slow or non-responsive administrative staff, difficulties with insurance and transfer coordination, and allegations that management prioritizes revenue (forcing room changes, asking families to pay out-of-pocket, offering bonuses for five-star reviews). Some reviewers say the facility improved after acquisition or leadership change, while others specifically accuse management of incentivizing fake reviews or being absent when problems arise. These conflicting impressions underscore that experiences vary significantly depending on the time, team, or unit.
A central pattern across the reviews is inconsistency: many comments stress that care quality depends heavily on which staff members are on duty, and families often report that some wings or teams provide excellent, compassionate care while other shifts are neglectful or incompetent. This variability extends to clinical care (medication/dialysis administration), hygiene and housekeeping, responsiveness, food quality, and activity offerings. For prospective residents and families, the reviews suggest a high degree of risk: while excellent rehabilitation outcomes and devoted staff exist, there are enough severe negative accounts (including safety and neglect allegations) to warrant careful vetting.
Recommendations based on the review themes: prospective families should visit the facility multiple times at different times of day and on different days to assess consistency; ask specific questions about staffing ratios, turnover, incident reporting, and how missed care is addressed; verify the management’s current practices around complaint resolution and transparency; confirm dietary and medical needs (especially dialysis and wound care) will be reliably met; and request references from recent families who had similar care needs. Regulatory follow-up may be appropriate for some of the more serious allegations, and families with high-acuity needs should consider whether the facility’s reported variability aligns with their tolerance for risk.
In summary, Majestic Care of Southport elicits strongly mixed reviews. It appears capable of delivering excellent therapy and compassionate care in certain units and under certain staff, and it offers valuable services such as in-house hemodialysis. At the same time, there are pervasive and repeated complaints about understaffing, neglect, sanitation, inconsistent meal quality, poor communication, and allegations of safety issues and misconduct. The most reliable takeaway is that experiences at this facility vary widely; careful, ongoing evaluation and direct verification of current staffing and quality measures are essential before placement.
