Overall sentiment across these reviews is highly polarized but heavily weighted toward serious concerns. While many reviewers praise individual staff members, therapy teams, and the activities department, a large and persistent subset of reviews detail systemic problems with sanitation, staffing, safety, communication, and clinical care. The result is a facility described in some accounts as capable of good rehab and compassionate individual attention, but in many other accounts as dangerously neglectful and unsafe for vulnerable residents.
Care quality and clinical safety emerge as the most consequential themes. Positive reports highlight effective physical and occupational therapy, successful recoveries, and discharge planning that families appreciated. Several reviewers credited named therapists and social workers with meaningful improvement for residents. Contrasting those positive clinical stories are numerous and severe allegations: delayed recognition or transfer for strokes and fractures, untreated pneumonia and sepsis, development of pressure ulcers (bedsores) requiring surgery, aspiration risk and tracheostomy needs, and deaths attributed by reviewers to inadequate care. Medication management problems (dropped pills, multi-hour delays) and unsafe transfer techniques —including one report of a nurse handling a large knife during transfers—are repeatedly cited and compound concerns about resident safety.
Staffing and staff behavior show stark variability. Many individual nurses, CNAs and administrative staff receive heartfelt praise (several by name), and several reviews describe teamwork, empathy, and professionalism. At the same time, a large number of reviews report rude, inattentive or untrained staff, cover-ups, staff protecting each other, and instances of explicit mistreatment —including verbal harassment and alleged racial slurs. Night and weekend staffing are frequently singled out as particularly thin, contributing to slow responses to call bells and unmet care needs. Several reviews indicate a culture where a few committed employees can provide good care, but systemic understaffing and inconsistent training create danger for many residents.
Sanitation and maintenance are recurrent, concrete concerns. Reports of urine odor, feces on clothing and in hallways, dead roaches, cigarette butts and trash in halls, bulging bags of laundry, filthy rooms, and peeling paint create a picture of poor environmental infection control and housekeeping. Multiple reviews describe unfinished drywall around beds, exposed patchwork, holes in walls, and broken equipment (nonworking bed rails, unresponsive emergency buttons, broken ice machines). These conditions are described not as isolated incidents but as pervasive, prompting repeated calls from reviewers for health-department inspections and even facility shutdowns.
Safety incidents and incident reporting are another dominant cluster of complaints. Reviewers describe assaults by other residents with inadequate staff response, improper handling of dementia patients (being shoved into dark rooms), and lack of police involvement when incidents occurred. Several families recount being denied proper incident statements, being moved to hallways rather than having incidents addressed, and management not taking allegations seriously. There are also reports of involuntary retention (being held when attempting to leave AMA) and aggressive or unsafe restraint practices. Taken together, these accounts raise substantial concern about both immediate physical safety and the facility's processes for incident investigation and external reporting.
Communication and management responsiveness are inconsistent across reviews. Numerous families praise particular administrators and staff (names like Melissa, Roxanne, Dr. Maceline Yaya, and others) who were responsive, coordinated care, or implemented improvements. Several reviewers also note positive changes after leadership turnover and praise the admissions process for being welcoming. However, just as many reports criticize management for not returning emails, ignoring complaints, hanging up on callers, failing to produce investigation reports, or seeming to protect staff rather than residents. Some reviewers allege incentivized positive reviews or manipulation of reputational data, which, if true, would further undermine trust.
Activities, admissions, and rehabilitation are relative bright spots. Multiple reviewers emphasize a dynamic, engaging activities program with directors repeatedly singled out for excellence, and many credit the therapy teams with substantive functional recovery. Admissions and front-desk staff frequently receive praise for being welcoming and informative. For families whose priority is active rehabilitation and social engagement, these strengths were influential in positive experiences.
Dining, amenities, and room arrangements show mixed-to-negative feedback. Food quality is often criticized —described as poor, inedible, or prison-like— though a few reviewers note improvements or enjoyable meals. Room overcrowding (triple or even quadruple occupancy in some reports), shared TVs, minimal privacy, and cramped layouts worry families. Broken or missing equipment (walkers, ice machines, basins), and uncomfortable room conditions (overly hot rooms, poor air quality) are also mentioned and exacerbate concerns about basic comfort and dignity.
Notable patterns and recommendations that recur in reviews: many families say active engagement and frequent family presence improves outcomes, and several urge others to demand oversight or contact regulatory authorities. Multiple reviewers recommend transferring loved ones or advise against sending family members there, while others say the facility was the right choice for their rehab needs. Given the frequency of severe allegations (untreated infections, bedsores, delayed transfers, infestations, allegations of abuse and racism), readers should treat the facility as high-variability: it may provide good therapy and have dedicated staff, but there are consistent, serious, and repeated reports of unsafe conditions that warrant formal oversight and verification.
In summary, reviews portray Adelphi Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a facility with meaningful strengths —notably in therapy, activities, and certain compassionate staff— but also as one with significant and recurring systemic problems in cleanliness, staffing, safety, and clinical responsiveness. Families considering this facility should carefully weigh the documented rehabilitation successes and named compassionate staff against persistent reports of neglect, unsafe care, sanitation failures, and inconsistent management responsiveness. If choosing this facility, prospective families should seek direct, recent evidence of corrective actions (inspections, staffing improvements, infection control measures), maintain active involvement in care, and verify how incidents and complaints are handled and reported by administration.
