Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and polarized: many family members and visitors praise the Rehabilitation Center of Lisbon for its physical environment, food, and certain compassionate direct-care staff, while a significant portion of reviewers report serious operational and care-quality concerns that warrant caution. The facility repeatedly receives compliments for its appearance — reviewers describe it as beautiful, clean, well-lit, and tranquil — and multiple families highlight excellent dining and a comforting, home-like atmosphere. Several accounts emphasize specific members of staff (including a social worker named Kristin) and long-tenured caregivers who provide attentive, respectful, and compassionate care; these positive reports often mention a family-like culture, helpfulness, and good communication that led families to highly recommend the facility for rehabilitation or long-term stays.
However, a cluster of recurrent and substantive negative themes appears across many summaries. The most prominent issues center on staffing, management, and consistency of care. Multiple reviewers point to high staff turnover, leadership instability (several directors over a short period), and heavy reliance on agency staff (one review cites ~75%), which correlates with reports of slow response times to call lights, understaffing, and variable skill/behavior among nursing personnel. Some reviews describe CNAs being treated poorly by nurses, which may contribute to morale and turnover problems. These staffing issues are tied to concrete safety concerns in several accounts: slow nursing responses, two reported resident falls in one summary, failure to contact hospice staff in a timely manner, and family members needing to perform nursing duties for their loved ones.
A second major and consistent area of concern is dementia care and specialized clinical attention. Multiple reviewers explicitly warn against placing persons with dementia at the facility, describing neglectful or inattentive dementia care, failure to monitor a dementia/diabetes patient appropriately, and family members having to step in to meet basic needs. These reports suggest gaps in training, supervision, or protocols for residents with cognitive impairments. Related to clinical care are allegations of inconsistent information, dishonesty, and even more severe claims such as transfer sabotage and financial exploitation; some reviewers accuse administration and management of lying or providing misleading information. One reviewer even references Department of Human Services (DHS) involvement, implying regulatory or investigative attention in at least one case.
Management and administrative practices receive mixed but often negative assessments. Several reviewers characterize administration as cold, inaccessible, or rude, and a few call out specific individuals for unprofessional behavior. Concerns about billing practices — charges without explanation or perceived financial exploitation — appear in more than one summary, and some families report being given inconsistent or changing information about care decisions. Conversely, other reviewers praise administrative responsiveness and caring management, indicating variability in family experiences that may depend on time period, individual managers, or departments.
Activities and amenity usage present a nuanced picture: while the facility has upscale amenities and a pleasant environment, reviewers note that activities like bingo have low attendance and few residents participate in walks or social programs. This suggests either a mismatch between available activities and resident interest/abilities, or operational limitations (staffing, scheduling) that prevent fuller engagement. Some families who saw active, engaged staff and residents reported strong social interactions and a welcoming environment, whereas others saw underused amenities and little engagement.
Finally, several reviews highlight a strong positive response to COVID-19, noting early lockdown measures and grateful families. Hospice coordination and social work support are praised in specific instances for facilitating family visits and end-of-life care. At the same time, the presence of reports alleging neglect, abuse, privacy invasion, and threats of vindictive behavior are serious red flags that frequently appear alongside otherwise favorable comments.
In summary, Rehabilitation Center of Lisbon appears to offer a high-quality physical environment, good food, and pockets of excellent, compassionate direct care and social work support. These strengths make it potentially well-suited for rehabilitation stays and for families who encounter the long-tenured, caring staff. However, recurring issues with management accessibility/attitude, high turnover, heavy reliance on agency personnel, inconsistent clinical care (especially for dementia patients), and troubling allegations around honesty and billing are significant concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s positive environment and some strong caregiving testimonials against the repeated reports of staffing instability and administrative problems. Recommended next steps before choosing this facility: arrange in-person visits at different times of day, ask for current staffing ratios and agency staffing percentage, inquire about dementia-specific training and protocols, request incident/complaint history and how billing is explained, speak directly to current family members if possible, and check any public DHS or regulatory records to corroborate claims about investigations or sanctions.
