The reviews for King David Nursing and Rehabilitation Center are highly polarized but reveal consistent themes when aggregated. The facility receives strong, repeated praise for its rehabilitation services: physical, occupational, and speech therapy teams are described as skilled, motivating, and instrumental in many successful recoveries. The rehab wing and therapy gym are frequently described as modern, well-equipped, bright, and effective. Many families and patients highlight particular therapists and staff by name and credit the therapy program with significant functional gains and timely discharges home.
Daytime frontline staff — receptionists, many GNAs, and several nurses — are frequently characterized as compassionate, friendly, and attentive. Numerous reviews describe warm personal touches, helpful concierge service, effective social work interventions, and a welcoming Jewish cultural environment with rabbinical support and kosher meal options. Activities programming, therapeutic arts, and community events (e.g., Bingo, Veterans Day tributes) are highlighted as assets that boost morale and engagement. When management and specific administrators or social workers are involved, some families report efficient, empathetic handling of complex issues and good communication by email or phone.
However, a substantial and concerning cluster of reviews points to serious deficiencies — primarily concentrated in long-term care, night/weekend coverage, dietary services, and facility-wide consistency. Many reviewers report that long-term residents experienced inadequate basic care: being left in soiled diapers or linens for extended periods, bathing and toileting needs neglected, leaking toilets unaddressed, and lack of extra supplies such as clean socks or sheets. Several accounts describe residents left in urine or feces for an hour or more. These incidents, along with reports of bedsores, possible overmedication, and at least one alleged medication overdose due to poor communication, point to safety and quality-of-care lapses that families found alarming.
Dining and nutrition are recurring pain points. While some reviewers praise tasty, nutritious meals, a large subset describe cold, missing, or inedible food; meals arriving incomplete or with wrong items for restricted diets; and instances of weight loss or even food poisoning requiring hospitalization. Dietary adherence appears inconsistent, and families reported having to monitor meal delivery and content closely. Complaints about portion sizes, lack of beverages, no clear menu, and the kitchen’s inability to reliably meet therapeutic diet requirements appear repeatedly.
Cleanliness and the physical condition of the building are described as highly variable. Many reviewers praise the cleanliness of the rehab area and upper floors, noting bright, welcoming spaces. Conversely, other reviewers report significant problems in long-term or lower-floor areas — peeling paint, stained linens, mouse/rodent sightings, roaches, very small or rough towels, and overall aged or depressing surroundings. This unevenness appears to map to differences between the modern rehab wing and older long-term units. Several reviewers explicitly moved loved ones after encountering pests or extreme uncleanliness.
Management, staffing, and organizational culture emerge as mixed. Some families commend specific administrators and social workers for responsiveness and advocacy. Others report indifference, poor follow-through, collusion among staff to conceal incidents, threats related to residents’ finances, and high turnover that leaves temporary or inexperienced workers caring for complex patients. Night and weekend staffing shortages — and the related slow or absent responses to call bells — are repeatedly cited. These staffing inconsistencies contribute to a perception that quality depends heavily on which shift or unit a resident is on and which individual caregivers are present.
Given the pattern in these reviews, the overall recommendation is nuanced: King David appears to excel at short-term, intensive rehabilitation care with strong therapy teams, supportive daytime staff, active programming, and positive discharge planning in many cases. Families looking for rehab-centric, time-limited stays often report excellent outcomes. In contrast, prospective long-term residents and their families should exercise caution. The long-term units show a higher frequency of neglect and environmental concerns in these reports, and several serious safety and quality incidents were described that merit attention.
Practical implications for families considering King David: verify staffing levels for the unit and shifts relevant to your loved one (especially nights/weekends), ask to tour the specific long-term unit rather than only the rehab wing, obtain recent state inspection and incident reports, clarify dietary protocols for therapeutic needs, and confirm how the facility addresses pest control and housekeeping. If choosing King David for a short-term rehab stay, emphasize therapy goals and confirm continuity of daily PT/OT. If considering long-term placement, monitor hygiene, toileting, and medication administration closely and establish clear lines of communication with management and social work.
In summary, the facility demonstrates notable strengths in rehabilitation, many dedicated and praised staff members, and meaningful cultural/activities programming. Yet significant and repeated reports of neglect, inconsistent dietary and nursing care, cleanliness issues, and management variability make it essential for families to investigate unit-specific performance and shift coverage before committing to long-term placement. The experience at King David appears to vary widely by unit, shift, and individual staff, producing both standout success stories and deeply concerning failures in basic care.
