The reviews for Harlan Health and Rehabilitation Center present a strongly mixed picture, with a clear polarization between high praise for staff, programming, and therapy services on one hand, and serious sanitation and neglect concerns on the other. Many reviewers emphasize that individual caregivers and teams are highly compassionate, responsive, and dedicated. Multiple comments describe staff who go “above and beyond,” an “amazing administrative team,” outstanding nursing care, excellent physical and occupational therapy, and “incredible” activities involving residents and families. Several reviewers explicitly praise housekeeping and laundry staff and note that dietary staff make every effort and meet nutrition needs. Personal anecdotes name specific nurses (Charleen and Helen) and describe the environment as family-like or home-like, with some reviewers strongly recommending the facility and calling it “one of the best” nursing homes they’ve seen.
Despite those positive accounts, there are recurring, serious negative reports that cannot be overlooked. A set of reviewers describe pervasive cleanliness and odor problems—urine smells, urine and feces found on commode seats, floors, and even walls, smeared on rails, dirty toilets, and soiled diapers left in resident areas. Some describe dirty dishes with rotted or molded food and tissue or other debris on floors. These accounts include reports of call bells ringing unanswered, residents in need of bathing being left unattended, staff talking instead of assisting, and even falls and other indicators of neglect. Such descriptions suggest acute sanitation and supervision lapses in at least some units or shifts.
A notable pattern across the reviews is inconsistency. Several reviewers report a clean facility that “smells good,” tender and attentive care across shifts, and top-notch teamwork; others report the opposite—very dirty conditions, offensive odors, and neglect. Similarly, dining experiences vary: some say food is awful, old, or served late, while others say that dietary staff are attentive and that nutrition needs are met; a few attribute blandness to medical diets (no-salt/low-fat) rather than lack of care. Staff demeanor likewise ranges from “friendly, warm, genuine care” to instances of rudeness, boredom, or inappropriate joking. This variability implies that experiences may differ significantly depending on time of day, specific units, or particular staff members.
In operational terms, reviewers praise the administration and activities programming, and many single out therapy services and specific staff members for high marks. However, multiple comments saying the facility “could be run better,” and the direct reports of unattended residents and unanswered call bells suggest possible systemic issues—for example, staffing shortages, inconsistent enforcement of cleaning protocols, or uneven supervision—that lead to serious negative outcomes for some residents even while other aspects of care are strong.
Overall, the sentiment is divided: there is clear evidence of strong, compassionate caregivers, excellent therapy and activities, and administrative strengths, but these positives are counterbalanced by frequent and severe reports of sanitation failures, inconsistent care, and neglect. For prospective residents or family members, the reviews indicate the importance of in-person visits, asking specific questions about cleanliness protocols, staffing levels across shifts, call bell response times, and observing multiple units/shifts to gauge consistency. The polarized nature of the feedback is the most striking takeaway: exceptional person-centered care is reported alongside alarming episodes of neglect and poor hygiene, making individual verification and ongoing monitoring crucial.
