Overall impression: The reviews for Holy Cross are deeply mixed and highly polarized. Many accounts praise individual caregivers, therapists, and certain aspects of the facility (clean spaces, private rooms, a helpful business office, and strong rehabilitation results). At the same time, a significant portion of reviews describe systemic problems: inconsistent care quality, staffing shortages, communication failures, safety incidents, and hygiene or maintenance issues. The net sentiment is that experiences vary dramatically by unit, shift, or even individual staff members — producing both glowing recommendations and warnings of serious neglect.
Care quality and staff behavior: One clear pattern is variability in the quality and professionalism of frontline staff. Numerous reviewers explicitly describe kind, loving, and attentive nurses and CNAs who went above and beyond — these caregivers are repeatedly credited with prompt assistance, good wound care, helpful therapy, and emotional support. Conversely, other reviewers report rude, snarly, or rough aides and nurses who ignore call buttons, have very slow response times, or display unprofessional conduct. Several reviews detail inexperienced or rough handling by male aides and CNAs, residents left unattended, and accounts of staff not following through. Short-staffing is often cited as an underlying cause for hurried or cursory care and for staff being “preoccupied” with other tasks rather than patient needs.
Rehab and therapy: Therapy is another area with wide variation. Many families praise physical and occupational therapy and report excellent, life-changing rehabilitation outcomes and connectivity to St. Joseph's Hospital. At the same time, other reviewers report cancelled PT sessions, progress plateaus, unclear therapy plans, and therapy staff that are unresponsive to family inquiries. Some reviews also note premature removal of mobility aids (walker) and inappropriate or premature reliance on wheelchairs, which family members believe hindered recovery. Unclear discharge planning and lack of communication from therapy or nursing about goals and timelines recur as significant frustrations.
Safety, clinical concerns, and incidents: Several serious safety issues appear in the reviews. These include residents being found on the floor, denied or delayed pain medication, urine-soaked bedding or clothing from unmanaged incontinence, and transfers that allegedly caused bruising. There are also grave allegations such as refusal to call EMS in emergencies and at least one report of a death under care that led to legal action. Families report that these safety and clinical failures are often associated with poor supervision, rushed transfers, and staffing gaps. There are also allegations of managerial misconduct, including claims of dishonesty, theft of money, retaliation, and unfair termination of staff who raised concerns — all of which undermine trust in leadership and follow-up on complaints.
Cleanliness and maintenance: Facility condition and cleanliness are inconsistent across reviews. Some reviewers describe bright, airy dining spaces, attentive cleaning staff, and no odor issues. Others report urine smells in halls, sticky or stained floors, stained food, days-old meals left out, and pervasive maintenance problems: outdated or aged buildings, bad plumbing, poor lighting, and rooms in disrepair. Numerous comments describe small rooms, missing furniture or delayed deliveries (TVs, dressers, appropriate wheelchairs), and families sometimes needing to supply or clean the room themselves. These disparities suggest that cleanliness and maintenance are uneven and potentially dependent on specific units or time periods.
Dining and nutrition: Opinions on food are split. Positive reviews praise good food, snacks, and accommodating dining areas; some rehabilitative stays report adequate therapeutic nutrition. Negative reviews highlight cold meals, long waits, missing diabetic or specialized menu options, repulsive food descriptions, and even reports of no meals provided in extreme cases. Timeliness of meal delivery and assistance with eating (residents needing help but not receiving it) are recurring concerns tied back to staffing shortages.
Activities and social engagement: Multiple reviewers note a lack of meaningful activities, residents sitting alone, and an overreliance on television as the default activity. Some accounts describe condescending or token activities rather than genuinely engaging programming. Conversely, a number of families report occasional entertainment, activities, and social dining where residents can interact — again showing variability across the facility or shifts.
Communication and management: Poor communication is a frequent theme: families report unresponsiveness from nurses, therapy, and management; lack of information to Powers of Attorney about care or discharge; and promises made by staff that are not fulfilled (delivered equipment, furniture, or services). Several reviewers specifically name managerial failures and a lack of follow-up on complaints. Positive notes about the business office and managers introducing themselves indicate that pockets of effective management exist, but inconsistent leadership and follow-through are significant pain points.
Serious allegations and legal concerns: A few reviews include severe allegations — theft of money, managerial dishonesty (one name cited), improper handling of complaints, and at least one death under care that prompted or was linked to a lawsuit. These reports, while less frequent than other complaints, are notable because they concern resident safety, legal exposure, and institutional accountability.
Patterns and practical takeaways: The dominant pattern is inconsistency — the same facility is described as “amazing” by some and a “hell hole” by others. Positive experiences frequently highlight specific staff members (nurses, CNAs, therapists, finance staff) who provide compassionate, competent, and prompt care. Negative experiences tend to cluster around times/units with short staffing, poor maintenance, and weak management responsiveness. Common actionable concerns families raise include monitoring call-light response times, observing mealtime assistance, confirming therapy schedules and discharge plans in writing, asking about dementia and incontinence care protocols, checking cleaning and odor conditions, and clarifying emergency procedures and incident reporting.
Conclusion: Holy Cross elicits strongly divergent reviews that make it essential for prospective residents and families to do targeted due diligence. When staffing, leadership, and therapy are functioning well, the facility can provide excellent, compassionate care and effective rehabilitation. However, recurring reports of understaffing, communication breakdowns, hygiene or maintenance problems, safety incidents, and serious managerial allegations indicate material risks that should be investigated before placement. Families should seek specific, verifiable information about staffing ratios, therapy plans, infection control/cleaning protocols, incident reporting, and how the facility addresses complaints and negative incidents to form a balanced, informed decision.
