Overall sentiment in the reviews for Creekside Village is deeply mixed and highly polarized. A substantial number of families and residents report excellent care experiences: clean, well-kept rooms and hallways, friendly and compassionate nurses and aides, an impressive physical therapy/rehabilitation program, and high-quality home-cooked food. In these positive accounts staff (including transportation, housekeeping, and cooks) are described as attentive and accommodating, intake and scheduling are handled smoothly, and families report meaningful recovery and improved quality of life. Several reviewers explicitly recommend the facility and praise specific staff members, the therapy department, and the overall atmosphere when staffing and management are functioning well.
Conversely, a significant portion of reviews describe serious and systemic problems. The most frequent and alarming complaints center on chronic understaffing, long or unanswered call-button response times, and neglect (residents left unattended for hours, not assisted to bathroom, or not cleaned after accidents). Multiple reports describe hygiene and safety breaches including bathroom backups with feces, unsanitary conditions, and unsecured entrances. Medication-management issues are repeatedly mentioned: medications not given as ordered, long waits, crushing/spoonfeeding meds inappropriately, and inconsistent nurse accounts. These clinical and safety concerns have, in several cases, led to emergency room transfers or hospitalizations.
Staff behavior and consistency are a major theme. While some reviews single out compassionate, professional staff and administrators, many others report rude, dismissive, or apathetic attitudes from aides and nurses, especially on night shifts. Families describe staff rolling eyes, door-slamming, brushing off concerns, and failing to return calls. High turnover and inconsistent staffing patterns exacerbate these problems, creating a lack of continuity in care and frequent changes in who provides services to residents. Several reviews accuse management of being defensive, slow to follow up, or uninterested in remediation; others praise particular directors or teams as doing their best despite challenges.
Facilities and amenities receive mixed marks. Numerous reviewers praise the building, private rooms, pleasant smells, and overall cleanliness. The therapy wing and rehab settings are frequently lauded for strong outcomes, twice-daily PT for some residents, and attentive therapists. However, other reviews point to specific maintenance and housekeeping deficits: ants, infrequent cleaning, messy rooms, backed-up visitor bathrooms, and personal items misplaced or stored incorrectly. The dining experience is similarly polarized—some call the food excellent and made from scratch while others describe repetitive, poor-quality meals and dietary non-compliance.
Activities and ancillary services show variability. Positive reviews note an active life with events like ice cream Sundays and holiday parties that residents enjoy. In contrast, other reviewers state the activities program needs a major overhaul, the beauty shop is in poor condition with no set hours or fees, and promises such as hair washing or manicure services sometimes go unmet. Coordination with outside providers (hospice, VA services) also appears inconsistent; some families report cooperative relationships while others detail difficulty getting hospice supported or VA restrictions interfering with care.
Administrative and communication problems are recurring and significant. Many families report unreturned calls from nurses, social workers, or the director; delayed notifications about COVID exposures; and poor inclusion of powers of attorney in case planning. There are also allegations of questionable administrative priorities—preferential treatment for residents who tip or pay cash, money-focused practices, false advertising about staffing ratios, and even references to license issues or staff firings. On the positive side, some reviewers describe quick problem resolution when issues are raised, responsive intake staff, and administrators willing to meet and correct paperwork or resolve laundry/housekeeping matters.
Patterns and takeaways: reviews indicate a facility capable of providing excellent rehab outcomes and compassionate care under the right staffing conditions, but also vulnerable to serious breakdowns when staffing, scheduling, or management follow-through fail. The strongest, most consistent praise centers on physical therapy, certain nursing/therapy staff, and the physical plant when maintained. The most urgent, repeated concerns involve understaffing, neglect (including hygiene and medication errors), poor night coverage, and unresponsive management/communication. These issues have led to severe adverse outcomes in multiple accounts.
For prospective residents and families: the mixed nature of the reviews suggests an on-site visit and targeted questions are essential. Ask about current staffing ratios (including nights), medication administration protocols, call-button response times, how complaints are tracked and resolved, the facility’s COVID and infection-reporting procedures, and how they coordinate with hospice/VA if applicable. Observe shift changes, mealtime, and therapy sessions where possible, and request references from recent families whose loved ones received similar levels of care (short-term rehab vs long-term stay). Given the clear variability in experiences, first-hand observation and specific contractual/contract review (e.g., nurse-to-patient ratio promises, discharge planning, payment/tipping policies) will help identify whether Creekside Village is a fit for a particular resident’s clinical and safety needs.
