Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Several reviewers praise the facility for its activities program, some staff members, and moments of professional, attentive care—particularly in at least one hospice/end-of-life case—while many others report serious, recurring problems related to care quality, staff behavior, cleanliness, and safety. The reviews reveal a split experience where some families feel their loved ones are well tended, engaged by activities, and receive courteous service, while others describe neglectful and dangerous treatment that led them to advise avoiding the facility.
Care quality and safety are the most significant and concerning themes. Multiple reviewers use strong language — "horrible care," "dangerous care," and "mistreatment" — and allege specific incidents such as a resident with pneumonia not being sent to the hospital, excessive medication administration, intentional blocking of oxygen, and removal of narcotics. Those are serious safety-related claims that contrast with other reports of "professional care" and attentive care for individuals (including a positive hospice experience). The juxtaposition suggests inconsistent clinical practices and uneven oversight: some residents appear to receive appropriate, compassionate care while others experience lapses that families found alarming.
Staff behavior and culture are another major area of divergence. Several accounts describe staff and aides as rude, unfriendly, or untrustworthy; some reviews even allege staff theft. Conversely, other reviewers explicitly call staff "friendly," "helpful," and attentive. The references to "bad apples" and "spoiled bunch" combined with threats to "drop names" point to tensions between families and staff/management in certain cases. These conflicting perspectives imply variability in staff performance and possible staffing or supervision issues that create inconsistent resident experiences.
Facility condition and cleanliness are reported inconsistently but are a repeated concern. Some reviews praise the building as "clean and orderly" with "regular bathroom cleaning," while others describe the environment as "dark," "dirty and stinky," and suffering from a "strong urine/feces odor." One reviewer called the building old. This split suggests that physical cleanliness and odor control may vary by unit, shift, or resident location, and that environmental maintenance is an area that may need more reliable oversight.
Dining and daily living support receive mixed feedback as well. Multiple reviewers criticized the food as "terrible" and complained that meals were reheated when they arrived cold. At the same time, small positives such as "coffee served hot" were noted. These comments indicate that while basic comforts may be present, meal quality and service consistency are concerns for several families.
Activities and social programming are one of the clearer positive threads: reviewers repeatedly mention "very good activities," a "nice program," and entertainment that residents enjoy. This is a strength that some families highlight and may offer meaningful engagement for residents when other aspects of care are satisfactory.
Communication and visitation policies are a recurring source of frustration for families. An appointment-based visiting policy was specifically called out and led at least one family to feel restricted and upset about not being able to visit freely. Several reviewers also mention unresolved issues with management and poor treatment toward families, indicating that communication and responsiveness to complaints may be inconsistent.
Patterns and overall recommendation: the reviews paint a facility with significant variability — strong points in programming and pockets of professional, attentive staff, alongside troubling allegations of neglect, safety lapses, poor hygiene, and misconduct. This blend of positive and negative reports produces an overall red-flag impression: prospective families should treat the facility with caution. Because of the severity of some allegations (medication misuse, oxygen blocking, missed hospital transfers, and theft), it would be advisable for prospective residents and families to perform targeted due diligence: visit unannounced at different times of day, ask about staffing ratios and medication/oxygen policies, review incident logs or survey results if available, inquire how management handles complaints and oversight, verify visiting policies, and speak with multiple families about their experiences. For families with high-acuity needs or end-of-life care, verify the specific staff training and protocols in place.
In summary, Hammond Nursing Home shows meaningful positives—particularly activity programming and reports of compassionate care in some cases—but the number and seriousness of negative reports around safety, staff conduct, cleanliness, and management responsiveness are enough that families should investigate thoroughly and monitor care closely if choosing this facility. Where possible, consider comparing alternatives (one reviewer named Forest Manor favorably) and seek clear, documented assurances about safety and quality before making placement decisions.
