Overall impression: Reviews for Richwood Nursing & Rehabilitation are highly mixed, with a strong polarization between families who experienced attentive, compassionate care and those who reported serious neglect and safety issues. Many reviewers praise individual staff members, a clean and remodeled facility, and an active social program; simultaneously, a sizable contingent of reviews details severe clinical declines, prolonged neglect, and systemic staffing and management problems. The frequency and seriousness of the negative reports—ranging from inadequate basic care to possible documentation irregularities—are notable and recur in multiple summaries.
Care quality and clinical outcomes: Multiple reviews raise very serious concerns about clinical care. Several families reported significant health declines (weight loss, strokes resulting in loss of speech or mobility, progression to end-stage kidney disease) while at the facility. Accounts include residents left bedridden, long delays in assistance after bowel movements, minimal or ineffective rehab (with some residents discharged with worsened mobility), lack of bathing for over a week, and basic neglect such as being cold with no blanket or being fed the same inadequate food repeatedly. Conversely, other reviewers report positive clinical interactions—therapy evaluations that led to increased independence (e.g., obtaining a walker), good hospice coordination, and nurses who provided attentive, high-quality care. This contrast suggests inconsistent care delivery across residents, shifts, or units.
Staffing and staff behavior: Staffing issues are a central theme. Many reviews describe chronic understaffing, heavy reliance on agency nurses and aides with daily turnover, and overworked CNAs—conditions that reviewers link directly to neglect and long response times. Several accounts accuse nursing staff of being lazy, rude, or unprofessional; other reviews highlight exceptional employees who are compassionate, dedicated, and willing to go beyond expectations. Named staff (Christina, Sanela, Kim, Josh) are repeatedly praised for attentiveness, which indicates that the experience is often highly dependent on which staff members are assigned. Allegations around forged charts and paper-only charting practices are also reported and, if accurate, point to troubling documentation practices that undermine quality oversight.
Facility, cleanliness, and activities: The physical facility receives consistent positive comments: it is described as clean, recently remodeled, welcoming, and “home-like.” Group dining and a main dining room near the entrance are appreciated, and special activities and outings (fishing trips, concerts, fireworks) are cited as real strengths that contribute to family satisfaction. Private rooms and the availability of family accommodations for 24/7 visits are mentioned positively. However, some concerns about room size, lack of privacy, noisy roommates, and even reports of bugs temper the otherwise positive descriptions of the physical environment.
Management, communication, and administration: Reviews reflect a split perception of leadership. Several reviewers praise the administration and business office for responsiveness, helpfulness with insurance issues, painless relocation assistance, and bending over backwards to help families. In contrast, multiple other reviewers describe unresponsive administration, poor communication (no family updates, missed care-plan meetings), portal setup failures, and management failures such as disorganization and a perceived profit-driven orientation. These contradictory reports suggest variability in managerial performance, possibly tied to time periods, leadership turnover, or differences between departments.
Safety, dignity, and systemic concerns: Recurrent themes include safety and dignity lapses—alleged theft of personal belongings, supply shortages (wipes, toilet paper), and residents left exposed or unattended. Reports of residents attempting to leave unsafely and of inconsistent infection-control practices (including COVID-related concerns) add to the list of systemic risks described by reviewers. Several comments explicitly state a perception that dignity is not preserved for some residents, with assembly-line care, hurried or withheld assistance, and inconsistent bathing and toileting support.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews paint a picture of a facility with strong positives—clean, well-maintained spaces, meaningful activities, and some deeply committed staff—but also with recurring, serious negatives centered on staffing, inconsistent nursing care, communication breakdowns, and potential safety/documentation problems. The variance in experience appears large: families who interacted primarily with praised staff and responsive administration report very positive stays, while those affected by understaffing, agency turnover, or specific problem units (the 300 wing is named repeatedly) report distressing outcomes. For an objective decision-maker, these patterns recommend close, targeted inquiry into staffing stability, unit-level performance (especially the 300 wing), documentation practices, family communication processes, and incident reporting. Monitoring trends over time or seeking specific assurances about nurse-to-patient ratios, agency staff usage, and quality audits would help clarify whether reported problems are isolated or systemic.
