Overall sentiment about Danville Centre for Health and Rehabilitation is highly mixed, with a clear polarization between many strongly positive experiences and a sizable number of serious negative complaints. A large portion of reviews praise the staff, therapy services, activities, and a family-like culture; these reviews describe compassionate, attentive nurses and CNAs, successful short-term rehabilitation that enabled residents to return home, excellent wound care, and hospice staff who provided comfort and presence during end-of-life. Many residents and family members report that the facility feels like home, cite frequent activities (live bands, festivals, overnight trips, social dining), and describe the environment as clean, well managed, and community-oriented. Multiple reviewers single out management and leadership as positive forces, with repeated mention of administrator Penny Upton and a clinical team that is proactive and responsive in many cases.
Care quality and clinical services are among the most commonly praised aspects. The therapy and rehabilitation teams receive repeated commendation for helping residents reach functional goals, providing short-term and long-term care effectively, and delivering hands-on support. Wound care and clinical responsiveness are explicitly noted as strengths in several accounts. Several reviews emphasize that staff 'go out of their way'—staying during passing, offering comfort, and treating residents like family—suggesting strong pockets of compassionate practice across nursing, CNAs, and therapy staff. Reviewers who had positive stays frequently highlight transitions back home and express gratitude for the measurable improvements they witnessed.
At the same time, a significant subset of reviews raises serious concerns about communication, safety, and cleanliness. Multiple reports describe unresponsiveness from staff and poor communication with relatives; one reviewer reported that the facility was unreachable after a phone outage beginning on December 24. More alarming complaints include allegations of theft by staff, neglected personal care (missed bathing, dirty patients, body odor), and hygiene or sanitation problems (awful smells, dirty wheelchairs). Specific safety or privacy issues—such as lack of bathroom locks—were also called out. These negative reports are sometimes severe (1-star ratings, statements that they would not recommend the facility) and have led families to make plans to move residents elsewhere.
There is also noticeable inconsistency across reviews. While many describe the facility as clean and well-run, others describe it as disgusting or misleading compared with marketing photos. Staff behavior is highlighted in opposing ways: some reviewers praise particular staff members and administrators for being caring and solution-oriented, while others single out individuals for rude or hateful behavior (one name mentioned). This pattern suggests variability in resident experience that may depend on unit, shift, or individual staff assignments.
Administrative and logistical concerns appear repeatedly. Several reviewers reported confusion or lack of assistance around Medicare, grants, home health hour limits, and rehab placement; they felt they received little guidance on whom to contact or how to resolve insurance and funding issues. Conversely, other reviewers explicitly praised management and the business office for support. The mixed feedback on management indicates that while leadership is visible and valued by many, some families still encounter unresolved administrative problems.
In summary, Danville Centre for Health and Rehabilitation earns strong praise for its compassionate staff, robust therapy and rehab services, active resident life programming, and instances of excellent clinical care—especially in wound care and hospice support. However, the facility also faces recurring, serious allegations around communication failures, safety and hygiene concerns, staff misconduct (including theft and neglect), and inconsistent care experiences. Prospective residents and families should be aware of this variability: many people report very positive, family-like experiences and clinical improvement, but a nontrivial number report condition- and safety-related problems that prompted them to leave or to advise others against the facility. The reviews collectively point to a need for the facility to address communication reliability, clarify administrative/insurance processes, ensure consistent standards for hygiene and personal care, and investigate reported incidents of theft or neglect to restore trust where negative experiences have occurred.
