Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise individual staff, therapy, food and moments of very good, compassionate care, while a significant portion describe serious problems with staffing, hygiene, safety and building condition. Multiple families report that certain nurses, CNAs, therapists and social work staff are exceptional — compassionate, attentive, patient and willing to go the extra mile. Therapy (physical therapy and rehab) is repeatedly called out as a strength, with specific therapists named and praised. Several reviewers describe a family-like atmosphere, prompt communication for routine matters, helpful front-office support with payments and discharge planning, and activities such as bingo and trips that are appreciated by residents and families.
Despite those strong positives, there are numerous and severe negative reports that cannot be overlooked. Many reviews allege understaffing and overworked caregivers, which reviewers link to poor outcomes like delayed assistance, briefs not being changed, bedsores, dehydration and inadequate grooming. Hygiene and infection-control concerns recur: reviewers report odors of urine and feces in common areas, mold and peeling paint in resident rooms, diaper rash and skin breakdown, dental neglect resulting in rotten teeth, feeding tube infections, and dehydration. Several families explicitly stated that conditions improved only after moving their loved ones to another facility.
Safety and procedural concerns are frequently mentioned and are particularly troubling: unlocked medication carts, visible paper charts (privacy issue), frayed call-button cords, and electrical issues (power outlets arcing) were all cited. Reviewers also reported shortages or absence of necessary equipment and medications, delayed mobilization after admission (including reports of being bedridden for days), and long waits for nursing aides. Some described missing personal property and laundry issues. These complaints point to systemic lapses in maintenance, clinical oversight, and operational consistency.
Management and staff professionalism present a mixed picture. While several reviewers praise the director of nursing (DoN), social workers (named individuals such as Sally Johnson and Janie Cunningham) and some administrators for responsiveness and advocacy, other reviews claim administrators overruled clinical concerns, or that front-desk/phone staff were rude, defensive or condescending. A handful of reviews explicitly recommend shutting the facility down, whereas others endorse it as among the best in the region. This variability suggests inconsistent leadership presence and uneven enforcement of policies and standards across shifts or units.
Facilities and physical plant conditions are commonly criticized. Multiple reviewers refer to a run-down building, peeling paint, mold, urine odors in the entrance and lobby, and small cramped rooms that complicate care. Renovations are underway in some areas and were noted by reviewers; however, construction appears to have negatively impacted activity schedules and possibly resident experience during updates. A few reviewers, by contrast, report clean rooms and good upkeep inside resident areas, indicating variability in building condition by wing or over time.
Dining, activities and rehabilitation receive generally favorable comments. Several reviewers call the food excellent and highlight daily activities and outings that contribute to resident quality of life. Rehab is described as suitable and effective for many short-term residents, and multiple families credit therapy staff with successful outcomes. Nevertheless, there are isolated complaints about food quality and activity reductions during renovation periods.
Patterns and likely root causes apparent from the reviews: understaffing and staff turnover appear to be central drivers of inconsistent care — when experienced, attentive staff are present, care and outcomes are described as excellent; when staffing is thin or less-experienced personnel dominate, reviewers report neglect, missed care, and safety lapses. Physical plant problems and infection-control issues compound concerns, and inconsistent administrative responsiveness increases family distress. Positive reviews frequently mention named individuals who champion residents, while negative reviews often describe systemic failures rather than single-person lapses.
In summary, Bradford Square elicits strong, divergent reactions. There are real strengths — notably committed nursing/therapy teams, helpful social work, and positive experiences with meals and activities — but also serious and recurring concerns about staffing, hygiene, maintenance, clinical safety and professional conduct. Families considering the facility should weigh both the praised elements and the documented risks: visit in person (including different wings and during different shifts), ask about current staffing ratios, infection-control measures, medication/security protocols, recent inspection reports, and speak directly with the director of nursing and social work about any specific clinical vulnerabilities before making placement decisions. Frequent family visitation and active follow-up by advocates appear to be important for residents’ well-being based on these reviews.
