Overall sentiment across the reviews for Chase Center Rehabilitation & Nursing Services is mixed and polarized. Many reviewers strongly praise the caregivers — nurses and CNAs — describing them as compassionate, attentive, resident-focused, and willing to go above and beyond. Multiple comments single out the Fulton Unit and other nursing staff as "amazing," and a number of reviewers express that residents are happy, well taken care of, and that they would recommend the facility. Several reviewers also report that the facility has been remodeled and is attractive, that it is well-organized and clean, and that team members take pride in their work.
Despite these positive reports, there are recurring and serious operational concerns. The most frequent negative points relate to medication management (reports of late or missed medications), inconsistent staff attitudes (particularly front-office staff reported to be in a "terrible mood"), and hygiene/cleanliness problems such as bathrooms smelling of urine and occasional reports that the facility is dirty. These issues point to variability in day-to-day execution of care and environmental services rather than a uniformly poor level of care.
Dining receives highly divergent feedback. Some reviewers praise healthy, well-prepared meals, while others criticize the food as "terrible" or "unrecognizable," note a lack of diabetic-friendly options, and say the same meals are served to everyone. This suggests inconsistent dining quality or differing expectations among residents and families; it may also indicate variability across dietary staff, shifts, or meal services.
Facility features and visitation policies are also inconsistent in reviewers' experiences. Several people describe a remodeled, beautiful building and an easy, welcoming visiting environment with many activities and family time. Conversely, others describe an old, outdated facility with no in-room showers and visitation policies that were not honored. The contrast in these comments suggests significant variability between units, times, or individual staff who enforce policies differently.
There are two additional areas of concern to highlight. First, some reviewers reported the presence of a strong perfume scent that was described as hazardous, which raises questions about scent policies and resident sensitivities. Second, at least one reviewer raised ethical concerns about how hospice referrals were handled, implying potential problems with communication or decision-making around end-of-life care. Both issues warrant attention because they can materially affect resident safety and trust.
In summary, the most consistent strength across reviews is the quality of direct caregiving by nurses and CNAs — many families and residents feel cared for and supported by clinical staff. The most consistent weaknesses are operational: medication administration, inconsistent staff attitudes/behavior (especially administrative/front-desk), cleanliness and odor issues, inconsistent dining quality, and variability in visitation policy enforcement. Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility capable of delivering excellent, compassionate care in many instances, but one that struggles with consistency across units, shifts, and administrative functions. Prospective residents and families should ask specific, targeted questions about the unit they would join (staffing, recent cleanliness audits, medication administration procedures, meal accommodations, and visitation rules) and observe multiple interactions with staff to gauge consistency. For facility leadership, the reviews suggest prioritizing medication administration reliability, standardizing dining and dietary accommodations (especially diabetic options), enforcing cleaning and odor-control protocols, clarifying visitation policy enforcement, and addressing front-office attitudes and ethical communication practices to reduce variability and align more reviews with the many positive experiences reported.
