The reviews for Booker T. Washington Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation present a highly polarized and concerning picture. On one side, multiple reviewers praise individual staff members, particularly physical therapists and certain administrative and social work personnel, for providing compassionate, effective care that led to measurable improvement in mobility and overall recovery. These reviewers describe excellent customer service, direct support from administrators and social workers, permission for pastoral visits, and a sense that staff-focused spending (prioritizing personnel over decorative upgrades) benefits patient care. The facility interior is noted as attractive by some, and a subset of reviewers called their stay a blessing experience and expressed hope about recovery outcomes.
On the other side, several reviews contain serious and alarming allegations of neglect, mishandling, and possible malpractice. Multiple accounts describe residents becoming unresponsive, suffering brain-function decline, and experiencing multiple organ failure, followed by hospital transfers and deaths (notably a father and a grandfather). These reports include claims that the rehabilitation facility did not respond adequately, failed to provide timely or clear information about critical events (such as the length of oxygen deprivation), and was slow to act. Some reviewers explicitly raise the possibility of litigation or malpractice suits. There are repeated complaints about missing personal items and even bank cards, which raises concerns about property security and administrative oversight.
Operational and day-to-day care issues recur throughout the reviews. Problems cited include understaffing, poor frontline caregiver attitudes (CNAs described as not very caring), broken promises, and delayed basic personal care (one reviewer reported the first shower occurred only after 2.5 months). Specific safety/process complaints include allegations that a call light was removed or otherwise made inaccessible, contributing to delays in response. These issues suggest inconsistent quality in assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) and an unreliable system for summoning help. Several reviewers also highlighted poor communication practices — family members reported little to no information from the facility during critical incidents, which compounded distress and may have impacted decision-making.
There are also troubling reports of discrimination and unfair employment or treatment practices. Reviews mention racial bias, unfair hiring, and size discrimination, indicating concerns about the facility's culture and equitable treatment of residents and staff. While one review praises management figures (administrator and social worker) for support, other comments accuse staff or leadership of discriminatory behavior, showing a lack of uniform experience across reviewers.
Facility and amenity impressions are mixed. Some reviewers find the interior attractive and note that resources appear allocated to clinical staff, which they view positively. At least one reviewer said the exterior is not visually appealing, and several prioritized functional care over décor. There is little information about dining, activities, or structured programming in these summaries; neither strong praise nor detailed criticism of meals or recreational offerings appears in the provided reviews, suggesting that those aspects either did not stand out or were not mentioned by these reviewers.
Overall sentiment across these summaries is highly variable and polarized: some families and residents report high-quality, meaningful rehabilitative care and supportive staff, while others describe severe lapses in medical judgment, safety, communication, and basic caregiving that culminated in tragic outcomes. The most significant red flags are allegations of neglect, mishandling of belongings, potential malpractice linked to loss of life or significant injury, and systemic issues such as understaffing and poor responsiveness. For prospective residents or families considering this facility, these reviews suggest important areas to investigate further before admission: staffing levels and turnover, protocols for emergency recognition and response, security for residents' possessions, communication policies with families, handling of ADLs and call-light access, and the facility’s record on discrimination complaints. The mixed nature of experiences means that while some may receive excellent care, there appear to be serious, documented risks that warrant caution and direct, specific questioning of facility leadership and references prior to placement.
