Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. A subset of reviewers report excellent care, especially for short-term rehabilitation: they praise the clinical teams, admissions staff, and leadership (including specific praise for the Director of Nursing), note successful therapy outcomes, cleanliness, and compassionate, long-tenured caregivers. These positive accounts emphasize good rehab results, daily room cleaning, helpful admissions and nursing staff, and willingness to choose the facility again for short-term skilled care. Medicare/Medicaid acceptance and perceptions of skilled clinical care are additional positives cited by some families.
Conversely, a substantial portion of reviews describe serious, recurring problems that raise safety, dignity, and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reports allege neglect (patients not fed or hydrated for extended periods), lost or swapped personal items and laundry (including prescription glasses), unsanitary wound care, and delayed or absent responses to call lights. There are several severe accusations including patient exposure, inappropriate handling of end-of-life situations, and deaths or significant decline shortly after admission. These reviews also mention transfers with no notice, lack of essential supplies (no urinal or call light provided), and wounds or sores left untreated. Such accounts indicate potential lapses in direct care and basic resident safety.
Staffing, training, and responsiveness are central themes. Many reviewers describe understaffing, long wait times, and staff who refuse tasks or say 'not my job.' There is a persistent claim that a sizable portion of direct care staff are not competent, with CNAs criticized and nurses portrayed as doing their best but sometimes overstretched. Memory care is repeatedly flagged as problematic: families report inadequate training, inappropriate placement for residents with Alzheimer’s or dementia, miscommunication about cognitive issues, and distressing incidents stemming from those shortcomings. At the same time, other reviewers explicitly state that staff are respectful, helpful, and that residents are well cared for, highlighting an inconsistent staff performance pattern.
Management, communication, and institutional culture receive mixed feedback and are a frequent source of frustration. While some reviewers commend leadership and the admissions/clinical teams, others characterize administration as rude, arrogant, unresponsive, or disconnected from families. Complaints include unanswered or dropped phone calls, poor follow-through on promises, and alleged retaliation after raising concerns. Several reviews call for state oversight or report that state investigations are underway, indicating regulatory attention in at least some cases.
Facilities and dining are also variably reported. Positive mentions include a clean facility with daily room cleaning and an overall nice admission experience. Negative reports describe dingy or filthy rooms, an overwhelming smell, very small shared rooms described as 'cubbyholes,' and poor meal quality—meals that are cold, unavailable, or inadequate. These opposing impressions suggest variability by unit, shift, or timeframe.
Patterns and takeaways: the reviews portray a facility with a bifurcated reputation. For some families and patients—particularly those receiving short-term rehabilitation—Altoona Nursing & Rehabilitation Center provides effective therapy, compassionate clinicians, and a clean environment. For others, especially long-term residents or those needing memory care, reviewers report serious and sometimes dangerous failures in basic care, dignity, and communication. The volume and severity of negative allegations (neglect, unsanitary wound care, lost items, and reports of poor end-of-life handling) warrant caution. Prospective residents and families should verify current staffing levels, ask about memory-care specific training, get specifics about room assignments and meal plans, and monitor care closely. The mixed reviews underscore the importance of visiting at different times, speaking directly with frontline staff and leadership, and confirming recent regulatory findings or improvements before making placement decisions.
