The reviews of Oakland Manor present a highly polarized and concerning picture with recurring themes of serious deficiencies alongside pockets of genuinely positive experiences. Many reviewers describe neglectful care, unsanitary conditions, safety failures, and poor management. At the same time, a number of families and residents report attentive, caring staff, meaningful therapy and socialization, and an overall positive living experience. The combined record suggests wide variability in care quality, heavily influenced by staff on particular shifts or in particular units, and inconsistent administrative oversight.
Care quality and safety are the most frequently cited issues. Numerous accounts allege neglect severe enough to cause or contribute to medical harm: residents left on the floor after falls for hours, bedbound residents discovered in filth, missed showers and missed meals leading to weight loss and malnourishment, and preventable infections (including staph and respiratory infections) that led to hospitalizations and ICU stays. Reviewers also describe long waits for call lights — in extreme cases hours — and specific incidents such as urine in equipment for days and moldy food left in rooms for multiple days. These narratives indicate systemic lapses in monitoring, basic hygiene, and timely response, particularly for residents who are not fully self-sufficient.
Facility conditions and environment are another major concern. Multiple reviews cite dirty rooms, foul odors, bugs, mold, and visible disrepair (broken wall sockets, missing curtains/blinds, motel-like small rooms). Climate control problems are repeatedly mentioned: rooms being unbearably hot in summer with no air conditioning, and reports of lack of heat or blankets during cold spells. These environmental failures create both comfort and safety risks, especially for frail elderly residents. Conversely, some reviewers explicitly state that their unit or the facility they experienced was clean and well-maintained, underscoring inconsistent conditions across the property.
Staffing, culture, and management form a mixed but critical theme. Many reviewers accuse staff of being unprofessional, rude, heartless or dishonest, with reports of theft (missing items and even a large sum of money alleged), staff accused of stealing, and families feeling lied to by administration. Several reviews highlight frequent staff turnover and shift-related delays (e.g., delayed assistance during shift changes). Reviewers also report poor communication from administrators, absent leadership, and ineffective escalation to regional offices. In contrast, other reviews praise “amazing” staff, individual caregivers who are attentive and kind, and managers who previously showed commitment to residents. This stark contrast suggests that resident experience is highly dependent on specific caregivers and leadership presence; where strong, consistent caregivers and managers are present, families report good outcomes.
Clinical services and therapy show similar variability. Some families commend therapy teams and individualized rehab that improved residents’ condition, and note good coordination of care. Others report that prescribed therapy was not performed, that medications or doctor visits were delayed, or that rehab and nursing care were inadequate. These inconsistencies likely contribute to the divergent outcomes described — from improved function and socialization to preventable declines requiring hospitalization.
Dining and activities receive mixed reviews. Positive comments mention enjoyable meals in the dining room, improved social life, and residents making friends. Conversely, several reviews complain about late wake-ups resulting in skipped breakfasts, poor or unappetizing meals, dirty trays and tables left uncleaned, and missed snacks or meal delivery to residents in rooms. The presence of both satisfied and dissatisfied reports again points to variability by unit or shift.
Administrative and operational concerns recur: disorganized onboarding, conflicting report times, withheld pay pending onboarding, alleged inappropriate billing practices (claimed Medicaid billing irregularities), and delays or poor handling of complaints. Some reviewers explicitly state they would not trust the facility and escalated issues to the police or to regional offices with little effect. At least one reviewer relocated a relative to another facility (Bethany Manor) with marked improvement, suggesting that outcomes may be improved by changing sites rather than by relying on corrective action within Oakland Manor.
Overall sentiment is sharply divided. A meaningful subset of reviews describe Oakland Manor as unsafe, unsanitary, and neglectful — with incidents that family members characterize as near-fatal or resulting in death. These reviews recommend avoiding the facility entirely for those who require full assistance. Simultaneously, a number of reviews praise caring staff, good therapy and social engagement, and significant improvement over time. The patterns suggest that the facility may have serious systemic issues (staffing consistency, leadership accountability, maintenance and infection control) but also pockets of competent, compassionate care. Prospective residents and families should weigh these mixed reports carefully: verify current management stability, inspect living units personally (for cleanliness, climate control, and safety), ask about staffing ratios and turnover, review recent inspection reports, and seek direct references from current residents or families to determine whether the positive elements apply to the unit they will occupy. If serious concerns exist (theft, repeated neglect, infections, lack of climate control), families should consider alternative facilities or insist on documented corrective measures and close monitoring.
