The reviews present a strongly mixed and polarized view of Farmerville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC. Several reviewers highlight clear positives: the therapy team receives high praise, some staff are described as fine or friendly, rooms (both private and semi-private) are appreciated, and the grounds are noted as well-kept with pleasant wildlife (birds and deer). Activities such as bingo and a church choir are mentioned and contribute to positive experiences for some residents. A subset of reviewers explicitly described their overall experience as positive and noted frequent cleaning as a benefit.
However, these positive notes sit alongside substantial and serious concerns that recur across multiple reviews. The most urgent clinical-safety issues raised are missed medications, delayed responses to nurse call buttons, and reports of patients being left unattended — including at least one situation that required an ambulance. These specific safety-related complaints point to significant lapses in direct care and monitoring that are cited repeatedly and would be among the highest-priority issues to address.
Staffing and staff performance are central themes in the negative feedback. Multiple reviewers described the facility as understaffed, with excessive workloads and inadequate coverage. Some accounts characterize CNAs as lazy and nurses as merely adequate, suggesting inconsistent performance among caregiving staff. Poor communication, staff cliques, and reports of management problems — including negative perceptions of the Director of Nursing (DON) and broader leadership — further exacerbate concerns about coordination and accountability.
Facility condition and cleanliness are areas of direct contradiction in the reviews. While a few reviewers praise frequent cleaning and well-maintained grounds, others describe the facility as dirty or filthy and the buildings as old or ancient, not meeting modern standards. This split suggests uneven maintenance or that appearance and cleanliness may vary by unit or timeframe. Concern about regulatory compliance appears as multiple reviewers express doubt the facility would pass state inspection, which aligns with reports of both cleanliness and care deficiencies.
Administrative and nonclinical problems also surface: misaddressed mail and mail being given to the wrong recipient were specifically mentioned, indicating lapses in administrative processes. One reviewer reported being refused permission to have a dog stay with a resident, which highlights restrictive or inconsistently applied pet policies that may matter to families. Communication problems extend beyond staff cliques to family interactions, with reviewers citing poor communication overall.
In summary, the aggregate picture is one of mixed strengths and serious weaknesses. Strengths include a well-regarded therapy team, some positive staff interactions, pleasant grounds, and available activities that residents enjoy. The most pressing negatives are patient-safety issues (missed meds, delayed call responses, unattended patients), systemic understaffing and workload problems, inconsistent cleanliness and aging facilities, and leadership/management shortcomings. The pattern suggests that experiences may vary widely — some residents and families receive acceptable or even positive care experiences, while others encounter significant failures that could threaten resident safety and satisfaction. Any decision-making based on these reviews should weigh the severity and recurrence of safety and staffing complaints heavily, and prospective residents or families should seek up-to-date information on staffing levels, recent state inspection results, and corrective actions taken by management.
