The reviews for Legacy Nursing and Rehabilitation of Tallulah present a starkly divided picture, with a subset of reviewers praising the facility and another subset reporting very serious allegations of neglect and mistreatment. Positive comments emphasize compassionate, respectful staff interactions, effective therapy services, clean physical surroundings, and engaging activities that residents enjoy. Several reviewers describe the nurses, aides and therapy teams as 'awesome' and highly recommend the facility, even citing a 5-star overall impression.
Contrasting sharply with those positive accounts are multiple reviews alleging severe clinical and care breakdowns. These negative summaries describe wounds and pressure injuries (bedsores) that became infected, purported spread of infection to bone, dehydration, malnutrition and weight loss, and at least one account linking care failures to amputation and death. Additional clinical safety concerns include failure to clean bodily waste and alleged overall neglect by staff. The language used in those reviews indicates not just dissatisfaction but claims of harmful outcomes and calls for legal action.
Communication and management responsiveness emerge as prominent themes across the reviews, but again with opposite valences. Positive reviews highlight respectful treatment of families and staff who are understanding and caring. Negative reviews focus on misinformation about resident status (for example being told a resident was asleep when they were awake), staff misrepresentation, front desk phones leaving callers on hold, and managers who did not return calls. One review explicitly states that family members were advised to sue and that the facility is under investigation, signaling potential systemic or regulatory concerns (as claimed by reviewers).
Facility appearance and programming receive generally favorable remarks: several reviewers describe the home as beautiful and clean, note that residents enjoy activities, and praise the friendliness of staff. These details suggest that the facility may present well in terms of environment and routine social programming. At the same time, the severe clinical allegations indicate a possible disconnect between the facility’s appearance/activities and the quality or consistency of medical and nursing care for more vulnerable residents.
Taken together, the reviews suggest substantial variability in resident experiences. Possible explanations—consistent with the mixed reports—could include differences across shifts, units, or time periods; variation between individual staff members or teams; or isolated incidents that affected particular residents. Because the negative reports include serious clinical outcomes and mention an investigation, these are not minor complaints and warrant careful scrutiny by prospective residents and families.
For someone evaluating this facility, the most relevant facts in these reviews are the coexistence of praised personal care and troubling allegations of neglect and poor communication. Prospective families should seek up-to-date objective information (state inspection reports, recent deficiency citations, and any public investigation outcomes), ask detailed questions about wound care protocols, staffing levels and turnover, infection control procedures, nutrition/hydration monitoring, and family communication practices. Arrange an extended visit at different times of day, speak with multiple families and current residents when possible, and request documentation of care plans for residents with high-risk needs. That approach will help determine whether the positive reports reflect typical experience and whether the serious negative allegations are isolated or indicative of ongoing systemic problems.
