Overall sentiment for St Elizabeth Rehabilitation and Nursing Center is sharply mixed, with a clear pattern of strong praise for particular departments and individual staff members counterbalanced by repeated reports of inconsistent care, operational failures, and serious safety concerns. Many reviewers describe outstanding rehabilitation services (PT/OT) and compassionate, dedicated nurses, CNAs, and ancillary staff who provide individualized attention and meaningful activities. These positive reports frequently cite a clean, attractive facility with updated spaces (new gym, chapel), engaging programming (music, pastoral care, Bingo, birthday celebrations), and helpful front-desk and maintenance staff. Multiple families explicitly stated they felt peace of mind and appreciated the professionalism of certain managers and therapists, sometimes naming staff who went above and beyond. In these cases, residents made measurable progress in mobility and functional recovery, and the environment felt family-like and respectful.
Contrasting that, a substantial portion of reviews highlight systemic issues that undermine care consistency and resident safety. The most common negative themes are chronic understaffing, heavy reliance on temporary/agency workers, frequent staff turnover, and uneven attention across shifts—particularly nights and weekends. These staffing problems manifest as delayed responses to call bells, long waits for pain medication, missed or late meals, delayed bathing and diaper/colostomy care, residents left soiled or seated unattended for extended periods, and inadequate assistance with toileting and transfers. Several reports describe severe outcomes tied to poor care: development or worsening of pressure ulcers (some described as severe or reaching bone), pneumonia, and wounds with suspected infection. Families recounted delays in clinical attention and investigations, sometimes only acted upon after threats of legal action.
Medication management, communication, and documentation are other recurrent weak points. Reviews include accounts of medication errors, med changes made without explicit patient or family consent, failure to review meds with patients, and poor practices like not opening medications in front of residents. Discrepancies in medical records and discharge notes were also noted, including inaccurate statements about wound healing. Families reported poor or inconsistent communication from staff and administration, difficulty reaching nurses or resolving problems by phone (broken room phones or intercoms were mentioned), and slow review of patient charts. These failures in information flow amplify concerns about clinical safety and family trust.
Facility-level operational issues appear intermittently but meaningfully: reports of no hot water on some floors, phone systems or call bells not working, pest sightings (ants and mice), spoiled food, and construction-related dust/air residue. While many reviewers praised cleanliness and a lack of odors, others described dresser drawers with food residue, bad smells, or unsanitary conditions. Meal service received polarized feedback — several accounts praised excellent, ample food with variety and hospitality, while others reported cold breakfasts, missed meals, foods delivered at inopportune times, limited dietary options for some residents, and spoiled items.
Staff attitude and training are inconsistent across reports. Numerous families lauded warm, caring staff who treat residents with dignity and respect; at the same time, there are multiple allegations of rude, nonchalant, or apathetic caregivers—particularly among night and weekend staff—who were described as distracted (phone use), unhelpful, or even intimidating. Reviewers frequently contrasted long-term staff who are compassionate and experienced with temporary workers who lack training and commitment. Management responses also vary: some reviewers singled out specific administrators who were responsive, helpful, and effective in resolving issues, while others described disorganized management with inadequate systems, poor follow-through, and limited training for new hires.
Therapy and rehabilitation emerge as one of the facility's strongest components. Many reviewers reported excellent PT/OT that led to real progress and confidence gains for residents. At the same time, a minority questioned the therapy department's operations or effectiveness—these critical reports often coincide with broader complaints about record-keeping and staff coordination rather than the skill of therapists themselves. Activity programming, pastoral services, and social engagement received frequent praise, contributing to a positive resident experience when clinical and operational aspects function well.
Safety-related themes demand attention: multiple reviewers reported falls, bruising, and inadequate investigation into incidents; several described neglects severe enough to prompt relocation of loved ones or consideration of legal action. These are not isolated small complaints—they represent high-risk failures of supervision, assessment, and timely clinical intervention. Given these patterns, families expressed polarized outcomes: some found the facility excellent for rehab and day-to-day care, while others strongly warned against admitting loved ones, citing dangerous lapses.
In summary, St Elizabeth shows real strengths—particularly in rehabilitation, pastoral care, activities, certain clinical staff, cleanliness in many areas, and individual employees who provide compassionate care. However, persistent operational and staffing weaknesses create significant variability in resident outcomes and safety. The most pressing concerns reported are understaffing, inconsistent quality across shifts, medication and wound-care management failures, poor communication, and maintenance/ sanitation lapses in some areas. Prospective residents and families should weigh the high-quality rehabilitation and several praised staff and programs against documented risks of inconsistent nursing care and systemic operational issues. Families considering St Elizabeth would be advised to ask specific questions about staffing patterns (nurse-to-resident ratios, agency use), medication and wound-care protocols, incident investigation processes, how the facility ensures call bell/phone reliability, and to request regular, documented care planning meetings and clear channels for escalation when issues arise.