Overall sentiment from these reviews is highly polarized: a substantial number of families and residents describe Good Samaritan Home and Rehabilitative Center as a compassionate, effective, and homelike place with strong rehabilitation services, while other reviewers report serious safety, hygiene, staffing, and management failures. The most consistent positive themes are centered on direct-care staff and therapy teams — CNAs, nurses, and therapists are frequently praised as attentive, loving, and skilled. Multiple reviews specifically commend the rehabilitation department, describing excellent teamwork, meaningful progress, and successful stays that families found better than other local options. Reviewers also note that some units, particularly memory care or small “Cottage”-style settings, feel very home-like, with engaging activities and personalized attention that improve residents' quality of life.
Praise is often specific: families highlight frequent updates, photos, and easy remote communication that keep them connected and reassured. Several reviews call out individual staff members by name (Emily, Clint, Jennifer) and describe staff as "angels" or "like family." Long-term residents and families who report positive outcomes emphasize that medical needs were met, doctors' orders were followed, and there is a real sense of dedication among many caregivers. The facility’s rehab program receives repeated positive mention; some reviewers explicitly say it exceeded expectations and was a major reason for choosing the center.
However, the negative reports are serious and recurring enough to form a distinct pattern in other reviews. Key concerns include alleged neglect (residents left soiled for long periods, infrequent linen changes), hygiene and odor problems (reports of urine and bleach smells), and skin integrity issues including reports of bed sores and skin breakdowns. Several reviewers say the facility is understaffed, leading to delayed or missed basic care such as showers and toileting assistance. There are also multiple, severe allegations about management practices: reports of rude or unprofessional behavior by administrators (including specific comments about attire and demeanor), accusations of bullying, denial of workers’ compensation claims, and claims that financial considerations (insurance/money) take precedence over resident well-being. A small number of reviews make extreme allegations (including an assertion that a loved one died within 24 hours and other claims of gross negligence); these are reported as reviewer statements and indicate potential for very serious incidents that prospective families should investigate further.
Dining and facilities receive mixed feedback. Some residents and families praise the food and portion sizes, while others call the food "terrible" or "small portions." The physical environment is described by many as warm and home-like, though some reviewers note the facility is outdated or not state-of-the-art. There are also repeated mentions of odors and cleanliness issues in certain accounts, suggesting variability in environmental maintenance across units or shifts.
Activities and family involvement are strong points when the facility succeeds: reviewers frequently mention a robust activities program that engages residents mentally and socially, contributing to a positive atmosphere. Memory care receives positive reviews from some families who say it "feels like home" and provides specialized attention. Communication with families — particularly the practice of sending photos and updates — is highlighted as a major positive that helps families feel included and informed.
A clear theme across the reviews is inconsistency. Many families describe exemplary, compassionate care, while other families report neglect, poor oversight, and problematic administrative behavior. This variability suggests that the experience at Good Samaritan Home and Rehabilitative Center may depend heavily on the specific unit, staff on duty, and management at the time of stay. For prospective residents and families, the most prudent approach would be to conduct a careful, in-person visit, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, request references from recent families, inquire specifically about hygiene and skin-care protocols, and meet the therapy team and unit staff. If possible, verify how complaints are handled and what oversight mechanisms (state inspections, quality metrics) look like, since reviews reference serious administrative concerns that warrant verification.
In summary, Good Samaritan Home and Rehabilitative Center elicits strong feelings at both ends of the spectrum: many positive reports of compassionate caregiving, strong rehabilitation outcomes, and a warm, engaging environment; contrasted with troubling reports of neglect, hygiene problems, poor management behavior, and alleged prioritization of finances over care. The center appears capable of providing excellent care in many cases, but the reported inconsistencies and serious allegations mean families should do thorough, current due diligence before making a placement decision.
