Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed, with two clear and recurring narratives. On one hand, multiple reviewers describe compassionate, attentive caregivers — especially CNAs, hospice teams, and some nurses — who provided individual attention, warmth, and professional support. Reviewers who had positive experiences highlighted friendly doctors, responsive staff, a smaller unit size that can feel more personal (approximately 30 residents), and specific staff members who left a favorable impression (one reviewer named "Tony"). Several accounts describe the facility as "outstanding," "a place to heal," or otherwise very supportive for particular residents, especially near end-of-life care where hospice teams were called "incredible."
On the other hand, many reviews raise serious and specific concerns about neglect, safety, hygiene, and management. Multiple reviewers allege severe neglect including development of a stage 4 pressure ulcer, residents left unattended for extended periods (one reported being left in a wheelchair for 12 hours), and unsanitary care practices such as wet beds and pads being dried rather than changed. There are reports of infected wounds and at least one reviewer linking poor care to sepsis and a resident death. These accounts suggest inconsistent care quality across shifts and staff, with some aides described as neglectful while others are praised as wonderful. Several reviewers explicitly warn caution when considering the facility for a loved one.
Management, communication, and administrative issues are another consistent theme. Numerous reviewers complained about poor leadership, lack of transparency, and unresolved billing or financial concerns. One reviewer described funds withdrawn from a personal account without justification and voiced suspicions of financial exploitation; another mentioned police involvement related to disputes. There are repeated notes about lack of communication from administration, failure to follow up or offer condolences after bad outcomes, and billing problems that were not resolved. These administrative failings compound clinical concerns and increase family frustration.
Operational and environmental problems were also described. Some reviewers reported no working phone in a resident room, long waits to be attended by staff or doctors, and staff gossiping or congregating near the nurses' station rather than supervising. Dining and feeding concerns appeared in several summaries: residents reportedly not fed or only minimally fed, suggesting inadequate mealtime assistance. The therapy program and its manager received criticism from at least one reviewer, and a few accounts called out poor hygiene standards overall (one used the term "pigstye").
Taken together, the pattern emerging is one of highly variable care quality: when well-staffed and when particular caregivers are on duty, residents may receive warm, competent, and even excellent care (notably in hospice situations). However, there are recurring reports of serious lapses — clinical neglect, infection risk, inadequate feeding and supervision, and troubling administrative behavior — that present real safety and trust concerns for prospective families. Given these polarized experiences, families considering St. Mary's D'Youville Pavilion should conduct careful, specific due diligence: tour the unit multiple times across different shifts, ask for staffing ratios and turnover information, review state inspection and complaint records, inquire about billing and financial safeguards, clarify how wounds, skin integrity, and feeding needs are managed, and maintain active oversight after placement. The reviews indicate that while the facility can provide excellent, compassionate care in some cases, there are significant and documented risks that warrant close scrutiny and ongoing vigilance.
