Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly positive, with many former residents and family members praising Craneville Place of Dalton Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center for its compassionate, rehabilitation-focused care and small, home-like environment. The most consistent strengths are the staff — nurses, nursing assistants, CNAs, therapists, activity directors and support personnel — who are repeatedly described as kind, attentive, professional and willing to go above and beyond. Multiple reviewers credit the rehab program and physical therapy team with meaningful recovery and successful transitions back home. Several comments note that staff become like family, that the facility feels welcoming, and that residents are engaged, smiling, and well cared for. Named individuals (e.g., Denise, Pam) and roles (DNS, social worker, rehab staff) receive specific praise, reinforcing the impression of personalized and accessible leadership and social services.
Facility-related positives include cleanliness, private and spacious rooms for some residents, comfortable common areas where snacks and visitor interaction occur, and a family-friendly reception/dining area. Reviewers also appreciated smooth transitions from hospital to the center and back home, effective communication from business/social services, and an active Residents' Council indicating resident empowerment. The small size of the facility is commonly described as a benefit, creating a close-knit environment and one-on-one attention and fostering a sense of safety and trust for many families.
However, the reviews are not uniformly positive. There are several serious negative reports that deserve attention. A small number of reviewers allege neglectful care: limited hygiene (reports a resident receiving only sponge baths instead of showers), development of bed sores, and an incident where a resident was dropped by a physical therapist. These same reports state failures in incident reporting and documentation and note that one resident required an emergency room visit. One reviewer also raised serious concerns about administrative honesty and responsiveness. Such incidents are serious outliers compared with the majority of praise, but they indicate potential risks and warrant investigation and direct questions from prospective residents and families.
Operational and logistical concerns also appear repeatedly, though less dramatically: staffing variability (care may depend on shift), questions about night staffing and whether adequate 24/7 staff are available, and occasional frustration over access to residents' information and clarity about post-visit care. The facility’s small size produces some physical limitations: awkward room arrangement and restricted elevator access (noted as being used for laundry/food carts), which could affect mobility and convenience. Financially, one report mentions a room-hold charge of $450/day after a hospital discharge — a concrete datapoint families should clarify when discussing contracts and emergency contingencies.
In synthesis, the dominant pattern is one of a small, rehabilitation-focused center with many compassionate, skilled staff who deliver effective therapy and create a family-like, homey atmosphere that facilitates recovery. These strengths are repeatedly and emphatically noted in many reviews. At the same time, a minority of reviews raise red flags about neglect, hygiene lapses, documentation and incident reporting, and shift-to-shift inconsistency. Prospective residents and family members should balance the strong positive testimony about staff and rehab outcomes with due diligence: ask about incident reporting processes, staffing levels at night and on weekends, wound care protocols, documentation and communication practices, layout/elevator accessibility, and financial policies for emergency transfers and room-hold charges. Doing so will help confirm whether the facility’s many strengths are consistent and mitigate the risks suggested by the negative reports.
