Overall sentiment in the reviews for Bear Mountain at Andover is highly polarized: a notable portion of families and patients report excellent care, especially around rehabilitation and hands-on nursing, while another substantial group describes concerning safety, cleanliness, and management failures. The most consistent strength cited is the facility's rehabilitation program — many reviewers describe effective physical and occupational therapy, measurable progress (examples include patients walking after weeks of therapy), and thorough therapy teams who extend care planning into home transitions. Several family members also highlighted nurses and CNAs who were compassionate, attentive, and skilled; specific leaders (including the Food Director Marianne, Director of Nursing Diane, and other named staff) receive praise for visible, hands-on management and responsiveness in many accounts.
At the same time, multiple reviews report serious negative experiences that point to systemic inconsistencies. Medication issues are a recurring theme: long delays in receiving meds, wrong medications given without physician orders, and general medication-safety concerns were cited. Call bells and requests for help are described as being answered promptly in some accounts but ignored or extremely delayed in others (examples include patients left screaming or sitting in feces for prolonged periods). Cleanliness assessments are divided — several reviewers call the facility bright, modern, and very clean, while others recount episodes of blood, feces behind toilets, persistent urine or other foul odors, and repeated equipment failures (broken beds, toilets). These contradictions suggest variability by unit, shift, or time period.
Dining and dietary services are another major area of mixed feedback. Some families praise accommodating dietary needs, friendly kitchen staff, and even excellent meals; conversely, many complain about poor-quality food that appears to be shipped and microwaved, repetitive menus, trays left in rooms, and inability to manage allergies appropriately. Several positive reviews mention a dining-room ambiance likened to a "grand hotel," while negative reports suggest the food can be so bad that residents would refuse to eat.
Safety and infection control emerge as prominent concerns in negative reports. There are allegations of fall risks (walkers not placed correctly, lack of bed alarms), wound-care neglect (wounds opening or bleeding), and an entire-floor COVID outbreak with visitors allegedly becoming infected. Some reviewers explicitly called for investigations or suggested the facility should be shut down based on their experiences. At the same time, others credit staff with prompt recognition of acute events (stroke recognition, quick ambulance response) and lifesaving actions, showing that emergency responsiveness can be effective in certain situations.
Management, communication, and administration perceptions are split. Multiple reviewers commend administrators and the nursing leadership for being hands-on, resolving concerns, and fostering a family-like atmosphere. Others describe management as ineffective, making empty promises, or being unresponsive to complaints. Intake and admission processes are again described as disorganized by some families, and social work or case management interactions are characterized as either helpful or condescending depending on the reviewer. There are also serious allegations around staff dishonesty, forced removals, and proxy disputes that signal potential governance or policy conflicts for prospective residents' families to be aware of.
Common patterns across the reviews suggest variability by unit, shift, and possibly over time: the same facility is described both as "one of the best" and the "worst place" by different reviewers. This indicates inconsistent quality control — some residents receive excellent, rehabilitative, family-centered care in a clean environment, while others experience neglect, safety lapses, and poor sanitation. Weekend staffing shortages and younger, high-turnover staff were frequently linked to poorer experiences. Several positive reviews recommend the facility for short-term rehab stays and praise the therapy teams; several negative reviews urge extreme caution, recommend touring and asking targeted questions, and request external investigations.
Recommendations for families considering Bear Mountain at Andover: tour the facility multiple times (including evenings and weekends), observe the specific unit where a loved one would be housed, ask about med administration procedures and recent infection-control events, request to see staffing levels and weekend coverage, inquire about dementia-unit separation and bed/alarm policies, and speak directly with therapy staff about anticipated rehab goals. Given the polarized experiences, prospective residents should verify current leadership responses to complaints and seek recent state inspection reports. In summary, Bear Mountain at Andover demonstrates clear strengths in rehabilitation and, in many cases, compassionate staff and leadership, but these positives coexist with serious and recurring concerns about safety, hygiene, food quality, medication practices, and management consistency that warrant careful, case-by-case evaluation.
