The reviews for The Waters of Princeton present a sharply mixed picture, with a cluster of strongly negative allegations balanced by a number of positive first‑hand accounts. The most common and serious themes center on lapses in clinical care, staffing shortages, and management failures. Multiple reviewers allege significant nursing-care deficits: absence of qualified nurses on duty, failures in diabetic management (blood sugars not monitored, insulin not administered, glucose readings not recorded), and missed or delayed medications. There are specific and alarming reports that IV antibiotics were missed and that these lapses led to infections. These claims point to systemic medication-administration and monitoring problems rather than sporadic mistakes, according to several reviewers.
Staffing and responsiveness emerge as recurring concerns. Many reviews describe the facility as understaffed, with long delays for assistance to the bathroom, ignored call bells, and a night shift characterized as dangerous or ineffectual. Reviewers report unresponsive aides or nurses and instances of neglectful caregiving such as failing to feed residents. At the same time, caregivers—particularly CNAs—are often singled out for praise: multiple reviewers call CNAs the "backbone" of care, describing them as stellar, attentive, and sometimes credited with life‑saving interventions. Nursing staff receive mixed comments: some testimonials praise nurses as friendly and competent, while others identify specific nurses (one named nurse was described as rude and uncaring) and criticize nursing quality overall.
Facility condition and daily life details are also conflicted. Several reviewers describe a clean, homey building with a clean room, good food, and active programming like bingo and therapy groups; some explicitly recommend the center for post‑acute therapy or long‑term placement. Conversely, other reviewers allege the facility is filthy, cite poor hygiene, and even report residents smoking in bathrooms. The dining and activity programs appear to be a genuine strength for some residents, and skilled therapists are repeatedly praised, suggesting that rehabilitative and social services can be effective for certain occupants.
Management, corporate response, and regulatory issues are a major negative thread. Multiple reviewers accuse local management (including the Director of Nursing) of avoiding responsibility or being nonexistent, and they depict corporate leadership as indifferent. There are mentions of more serious escalation: alleged medication abuse by staff, involvement of the Attorney General, and threats to licensing. These are serious regulatory and legal concerns that reviewers say have not been adequately addressed by facility management or corporate oversight.
Overall sentiment across the aggregated reviews is polarized. Positive accounts emphasize compassionate frontline caregivers (especially CNAs), capable therapy teams, cleanliness and activities, and satisfying meals—details that support recommendations for therapy stays or for families who had a good experience. Negative accounts describe dangerous deficits in clinical oversight, medication administration, hygiene, and responsiveness, and they raise regulatory and management red flags. The frequency and severity of the adverse claims (especially those concerning medication errors, diabetic mismanagement, missed IV antibiotics, and alleged staff misconduct) are significant and would merit verification.
For prospective residents and families: the reviews suggest doing thorough, in‑person due diligence. Ask for current staffing ratios and shift coverage (day and night), inquire about diabetic and medication administration protocols and documentation, request evidence of how missed-medication incidents are tracked and addressed, and observe cleanliness and resident supervision during visits. Check recent inspection reports, any statements from the state long‑term care ombudsman or Attorney General, and ask management how they have addressed the specific concerns raised in these reviews. The mixed reviews indicate that experiences vary widely, and that while many frontline staff are praised, there are recurring, serious allegations that should be investigated before making placement decisions.
