Overall sentiment: The reviews for Jena Nursing & Rehabilitation are highly mixed and polarized, with a substantial number of serious negative reports alongside a smaller but consistent set of positive experiences. The negative reports focus on fundamental care and operational failures—poor hygiene, feeding neglect, communication breakdowns, and behavior problems among direct-care staff—while positive reports praise individual caregivers, nursing interventions, and certain administrative/activities staff. The pattern suggests significant variability by shift and unit, and recurring operational challenges typical of long-term care facilities in the region.
Care quality and clinical issues: Multiple reviewers describe serious clinical and basic-care failings: residents reportedly left unfed, underweight, or developing infections and wounds that are not properly treated. There are specific, troubling cleanliness complaints such as strong odors of soiled diapers, leaking nutritional supplements on floors, and reports of feces or blood on walls. Conversely, other reviewers highlight “wonderful nurses,” CNAs who go beyond duties, and at least one instance of a nurse intervening quickly and saving a resident’s life. Taken together, these accounts indicate inconsistent clinical quality—some staff provide high-level, attentive care while others fail to meet basic standards. The facility also houses high-acuity residents, which increases care demands and may exacerbate these inconsistencies when staffing is insufficient.
Staff behavior and staffing levels: A dominant theme is chronic staff shortages and staffing instability. Reviewers report CNAs who do the bare minimum, refuse to assist residents unless supervised, or blame residents for missing items or injuries. There are also allegations of theft and at least one allegation of inappropriate physical behavior (an employee sitting on a resident’s lap). At the same time, several reviews specifically praise caring, supportive staff and CNAs, an activities director, and nurses who act decisively. This bifurcation suggests wide variation in staff performance—possibly influenced by turnover, shift coverage, or management practices.
Communication and administration: Communication problems are repeatedly noted. Families and callers report unanswered phone calls, long hold times, disconnected calls, full voicemail boxes, and general front-desk incompetence. Several reviewers say administrators, admissions staff, and the director of nursing are accessible for tours and admissions, which is a positive point, but that responsiveness once a resident is admitted is poor. Management turnover is also mentioned, which can contribute to inconsistent policies and variable enforcement of standards. Multiple reviewers recommend in-person tours and firsthand observation because online reviews may be outdated and experiences vary.
Facilities, privacy, and safety: Facility conditions are described inconsistently. Some reviewers call the facility clean and home-like, while others say it is messy, filthy, and unsafe. Specific environmental concerns include leaking supplements, odors, blood/feces on walls, and bathroom privacy/noise issues. Surveillance cameras are present—some families view them as a safety feature, while others raise privacy concerns. Theft of personal belongings is a safety and trust issue raised by several reviewers.
Dining, therapy, and activities: Nutrition and feeding are a major area of concern—leaking supplements and feeding neglect are cited, and poor food quality is mentioned by some reviewers. Therapy outcomes appear mixed: some reviewers praise activities and an energetic activities director, while others say therapy “failed” or that promised services/activities were not provided. Overall, activities programming receives more positive comments than clinical therapy in the reviews provided.
Patterns, context, and recommendations: Reviews suggest a high degree of variability in resident experience—some families report excellent, even life-saving care and a pleasant atmosphere, while others advise strongly against placing loved ones in the facility due to neglect and unsafe conditions. Recurring operational issues (phone/communication failures, staffing shortages, management turnover, and hygiene lapses) are the most frequent concerns and likely drive many negative experiences. Several reviewers also caution that long-term care facilities in Louisiana have systemic challenges, which may affect this facility.
Conclusion: Prospective residents and families should approach Jena Nursing & Rehabilitation with caution: the facility appears capable of providing very good care in some instances but also shows repeated and serious lapses in basic hygiene, nutrition, staffing reliability, and communication. If considering placement, strongly recommended steps are: conduct multiple in-person visits at different times/shifts, speak directly with admissions, DON, and administration about staffing ratios and turnover, observe cleanliness and mealtime routines, ask about wound care and infection control protocols, and verify how the facility handles family communications and grievances. The mixed nature of the reviews means outcomes will likely depend heavily on current leadership, staffing levels, and unit-specific practices, so firsthand assessment and close follow-up after admission are essential.
