The reviews for Chesapeake Shores Nursing Center present a deeply mixed picture with sharp contrasts between pockets of clearly excellent care and recurring systemic problems. On the positive side, many reviewers single out individual nurses, aides, therapists, and administrators as compassionate, competent, and devoted. The facility’s rehabilitation/therapy program is repeatedly praised — several reviewers credit therapy staff with meaningful functional improvement and successful discharges home. Activities programming, dietary accommodations by kitchen staff, speech therapy attention to swallowing concerns, and some strong management figures (named staff like Dan and an open-door administrator) are highlighted as significant strengths. Families in several cases report good communication, attentive social work interactions, and staff who go out of their way to help residents connect with loved ones, especially during COVID visitation restrictions.
Counterbalancing those positive reports are frequent and serious complaints about cleanliness, safety, staffing, and basic standards of care. Multiple reviewers describe pervasive urine odor and even raw-sewage smell, unclean rooms, trash and dirty clothes not being removed, and general maintenance issues (unsealed floors, poor lighting, dated building features). These environmental problems are not isolated; they appear across many reviews and contribute to an overall impression of inadequate sanitation and upkeep.
Clinical and safety concerns are prominent in negative reviews. There are repeated accounts of slow or unresponsive call-bell responses, understaffing and poor staff-to-patient ratios, and night shift performance being especially problematic. Reports include missed, delayed, or refused medications — in one summary an IV antibiotic and an inhaler were not given promptly — and allegations of medication being dropped or not swallowed. Several reviewers recount neglectful incidents: residents left on bedpans for extended periods, left in urine, unattended wandering, residents found half-dressed in hallways, and catastrophic lapses such as falls leading to emergency transports. Some families say nursing staff lacked skills for basic procedures (for example catheter changes) and that therapy services were inconsistent — with physical therapy sometimes limited or not provided as ordered.
Staff culture and consistency are another key theme. While many staff members receive strong praise for kindness and professionalism, other reports describe gossiping nurses, eye-rolling, lack of empathy, and personnel who appear to be "just collecting a paycheck." The reviews indicate wide variability across shifts and staff: the same facility is described both as "phenomenal" and as the "worst ever," depending on unit, shift, or individual caregiver. Missing personal items (phones, chargers, glasses), lost donated items, and allegations that reporting of violations or safety concerns is blocked add to family frustration and distrust.
Management and administration receive mixed marks. Specific supervisors and administrators are lauded for responsiveness, problem-solving, and being family-oriented, while other accounts accuse unit managers of being unresponsive or even dishonest. Communication quality is highly variable: some families report daily updates and proactive outreach, whereas others say calls go unanswered, concerns are ignored, or decisions (including coerced long-term stays or insurance-driven discharges) are mishandled.
Dining and amenities are similarly mixed. Several reviewers praise the kitchen and dietary staff for accommodations and professionalism, but others complain about poor food quality, cold meals, and insufficient communal amenities (such as too few TVs or limited comfortable seating). Activities and social programming receive considerable positive feedback — residents enjoying outings, holiday events, karaoke, and an engaging activities director — which is a strong point for residents who thrive on social involvement.
There are notable process concerns relating to COVID and infection control: some families appreciated PPE use and creative adaptations for activities and communication, while others were frustrated by visitation limits and insufficient transparency around infection status. Insurance pressures and early discharge practices are cited as causing relapses in some cases, suggesting external systemic pressures affecting patient outcomes.
Overall, the pattern in these reviews is polarization: Chesapeake Shores appears capable of delivering excellent, even exceptional, individualized care — especially in its rehab program and through standout staff — yet also demonstrates recurring, serious systemic weaknesses in cleanliness, staffing levels, consistency of care, medication management, and maintenance. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong rehabilitation outcomes, caring staff members, and engaging activities against documented risks including sanitation issues, delayed or missed care, variable management responsiveness, and safety incidents. The reviews suggest that active family involvement, careful monitoring (especially early on and during night shifts), and clear communication with management are often necessary to ensure a good outcome for residents at this facility.
