The reviews present a deeply polarized picture of Naomi Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. On one hand, several comments describe strong clinical support: residents receiving good medical care, attentive nursing and aide services, reliable delivery of special diets, and practical support such as transportation to doctor appointments. An open-door administrator is specifically noted, and at least one reviewer felt the facility provided a safe, comfortable environment and appropriate care following a stroke. These points indicate that in some cases the facility is capable of meeting clinical needs and providing organized services that families value.
Counterbalancing these positive accounts are very serious negative reports alleging neglect and unsanitary conditions. Specific and alarming complaints include residents being left in feces and urine, aides sleeping on duty, and excessively long response times for assistance (one report cites a 35-minute wait). Cleanliness is called out as poor, and the tone of some reviews is vocally condemnatory, with one reviewer saying the place should be shut down. These comments point to failures in basic hygiene, dignity of care, and timely assistance for vulnerable residents.
Staff performance and staffing levels emerge as a key theme distinguishing the contrasting experiences. Positive reviews emphasize timely responses from CNAs and nurses and overall staff quality, while negative reviews point to aides asleep on duty and understaffing as likely contributors to neglect and slow response times. The coexistence of both types of reports suggests variability by shift, unit, or individual staff members rather than uniformly excellent or uniformly poor performance across the entire facility.
Facility conditions and resident comfort are reported in contradictory ways. Some residents or family members describe the environment as comfortable and safe, while others highlight poor cleanliness and unacceptable hygiene practices. This inconsistency may reflect uneven maintenance, differing expectations among reviewers, or intermittent lapses in oversight that allow serious problems to arise in specific instances.
Operational aspects such as special-diet delivery and transportation are cited positively, indicating functional systems for meal accommodations and external medical appointments. Management access is noted positively with an 'open-door administrator,' which can be an important factor in responsiveness and quality improvement. However, the existence of severe neglect allegations despite accessible management raises questions about the effectiveness of supervision, enforcement of policies, or staffing adequacy at certain times.
Overall, the reviews suggest that Naomi Heights can and does provide acceptable to good clinical and supportive services in some cases, but there are also reports of critical and potentially dangerous lapses in basic care and cleanliness. The pattern is one of inconsistency: some residents experience timely, competent care and appropriate services, while others report neglect, long waits, and unsanitary conditions. Prospective residents and families should weigh these mixed reports carefully, seek specifics about staffing ratios and shift coverage, ask for recent inspection or complaint histories, tour the facility across different times of day, and speak directly with management about how complaints are handled and what safeguards are in place to prevent the kinds of neglect described.
