Overall sentiment: Reviews for Sligo Creek Healthcare are strongly polarized. A substantial number of reviewers report positive, even excellent, experiences—particularly praising individual nurses, rehabilitation staff, and some managers—while an equally large and vocal subset reports serious and recurring problems including neglect, poor sanitation, pest infestations, medication errors, and safety incidents. The volume and severity of negative reports (including allegations of abuse, unresponsiveness, and infections/pest issues) are significant and appear frequently across independent reviews, although many reviews also describe competent and caring staff and successful rehab outcomes. This creates an overall picture of high variability in quality and reliability: excellent care for some residents, and dangerous or unacceptable conditions for others.
Care quality and clinical issues: Clinical care appears inconsistent. Multiple reviewers credit the facility’s therapy teams with excellent outcomes—patients regaining the ability to walk, learn homecare techniques, and benefit from intensive PT/OT that ran weekdays and, in positive reports, weekends. Conversely, many reviewers describe inadequate clinical care: medication omissions and administration errors, delayed pharmacy deliveries, medications given without consent, failure to provide promised PT/OT, and wound-care failures (old wound vacs, improper dressing changes, and lack of timely physician or wound-care follow-up). Several reports describe residents’ conditions worsening while at the facility and emergency hospital transfers after inadequate in-house care. These patterns suggest uneven clinical oversight and quality control across units or shifts.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication: Staffing emerges as a central theme. Positive comments single out compassionate nurses, GNAs, therapists, and a few strong managers or social workers. Negative comments emphasize chronic short-staffing, reliance on agency/contract staff, slow or unanswered call lights, unresponsive nurse stations, and delays in answering phones. Communication failures recur: unresponsive social workers, poor handoffs, language barriers, family members not given access to medical charts, and staff reportedly lying about canceled appointments. Several reviewers described distressing events where calls went unanswered for hours, residents were left in soiled clothing or beds, or staff refused to call an ambulance. These accounts indicate serious responsiveness and communication breakdowns that can directly affect resident safety.
Safety, neglect, and alleged abuse: Numerous reviews allege neglect and unsafe conditions: residents left unattended, personal belongings mishandled or stolen, rude or abusive interactions (yelling, harsh treatment), and at least one review mentioning police involvement and an investigation of a nurse for abuse. Reports of patient falls from lack of supervision, refusal to call emergency services, and death attributed by a family to poor care are extremely concerning. Such reports recur often enough to constitute a clear pattern of safety and supervision problems for some residents.
Facilities, housekeeping, and pests: Facility-related feedback is mixed. Some reviewers praised a clean facility, well-maintained common areas, pleasant entrance, and efficient housekeeping with regular linen changes. Others reported the opposite: cockroaches at bedside and on floors, mice, urine odors, dirty linens with hair, limited towels, beds or pillows in poor condition, and inconsistent cleaning. Pest infestations (cockroaches and mice) are among the most repeatedly cited negatives and are reported alongside bedside sightings, which heightens infection-control concerns. Maintenance issues (intermittent AC, old equipment) also appear in multiple complaints.
Dining and activities: Dining experiences vary. Several reviewers praised kitchen staff and enjoyed meals; others described canned, poor-quality food, overly peppered dishes, and diabetic residents being served inappropriate options (including soft drinks). Activities and therapy offerings exist—exercise rooms, board games, and activity calendars are mentioned—but participation and program delivery appear inconsistent; some reviewers said calendars were not used or activities staff were unresponsive.
Management, administration, and billing: Reviews reflect mixed impressions of management. Some reviewers singled out effective and responsive administration, smooth admissions and check-in/out processes, and managers who advocate for residents. Others accuse management of being profit-driven, misrepresenting services at admission, failing to enforce standards, and responding poorly to complaints. There are also complaints about pricing being high relative to care received, and about residents being discharged or billed without satisfactory answers.
Patterns and notable contradictions: The dominant pattern is inconsistency—some units, shifts, or staff members deliver high-quality, person-centered care and effective rehab, while other times the facility exhibits severe lapses in basic nursing care, sanitation, and safety. Recurring themes across negative reviews include pest problems, medication mistakes, wound-care failures, slow/no response to call lights, and neglect-related safety incidents. Recurring themes across positive reviews include compassionate individual caregivers, effective rehab outcomes, and competent housekeeping in certain areas. The coexistence of glowing rehab success stories and alarming neglect/abuse allegations suggests variation by unit, staff, or time period and indicates systemic issues in oversight, staffing stability, infection control, and communication.
Bottom line: Sligo Creek Healthcare elicits sharply divided experiences. If relying on these reviews to form expectations, families should be aware of the facility’s potential strengths—capable therapy teams, some truly caring nurses and aides, and good administrative processes in certain cases—but also take very seriously the many reports of neglect, pest infestations, medication and wound-care failures, and safety incidents. Prospective residents and families should do in-person inspections (including multiple units and times of day), ask specific questions about staffing ratios, infection-control and pest-management practices, wound-care protocols, medication administration audits, and oversight of agency staff. They should also verify promises about therapy frequency and obtain clear, written expectations at admission. Given the frequency and severity of negative reports, continued monitoring and clear escalation processes are essential for anyone considering placement at this facility.
