Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but centers on two recurring themes: many reviewers report excellent, compassionate, and effective care—especially in rehabilitation and therapy—while a nontrivial subset report serious lapses in cleanliness, safety, and responsiveness. A majority of positive comments emphasize skilled nursing, dedicated CNAs, and strong physical therapy that produced measurable recovery and discharge home. Multiple reviewers named individual staff (Christine Stewart, Christine Oden, Diana, Julia Love, Shannon Aguiar) and management as particularly helpful and credited the facility with timely medication management, thoughtful care plans, and a family-like environment that supported both short-term rehab and longer stays. Activity programming (bingo, movie nights, singers, dancing) and attention to residents’ comfort (music, grooming, dietary accommodations, pleasant outdoor areas) are commonly praised and contribute to the facility’s warm reputation among many families.
Care quality and staffing are the central strengths in positive reviews. Frequent comments describe nurses and CNAs as kind, attentive, and proactive—keeping families informed across shifts, adjusting medications effectively, and providing hands-on rehabilitation that led to fast recoveries. Physical and occupational therapy are repeatedly credited with hard work and good outcomes, including patients regaining walking ability and returning home within weeks. Several reviews emphasize personalized touches—playing favorite music, accommodating pureed diets, clean rooms and linens, and a homey modern interior with sunlit water views—which reinforce an impression of a facility that can provide high-quality, humane care.
Conversely, the negative reviews raise serious and varied concerns. The most alarming allegations include neglect (slow responses to call lights, leaving patients in soiled conditions), safety incidents (injuries, alleged abuse, theft of property), and—even more severe in some accounts—events tied to hospitalization and death. Several reviewers expressed distrust of administration, reported that complaints were ignored, and described staff training or supervision as inadequate. Sanitation problems are mentioned explicitly: rodent droppings reportedly ignored, fecal matter found in entryways, and a strong "odor of death" reported in an older part of the building. Physical plant issues such as extreme heat in some areas and an older building envelope are also noted. These reports create a pattern of inconsistent execution—while many staff appear dedicated and competent, other shifts or agency personnel are described as inattentive or poorly trained.
Operational and logistical problems recur in reviews as well. Multiple families complained about parking: staff vehicles blocking visitor parking and exits, making access difficult. There are also reports of bed assignment errors (another resident occupying a bed), delayed communication to families, and staff focused on phones rather than resident care in some instances. Agency CNAs are singled out in several reviews as a source of inconsistent care, and reviewers called for stronger staff training and administrative oversight. A few reviewers reported pursuing legal action or calling for external investigations, indicating a degree of distrust that extends beyond ordinary service complaints.
Taken together, the pattern is one of pronounced variability: many reviewers experienced excellent, compassionate, and effective care—especially in the context of rehabilitation—while a subset encountered unacceptable lapses in sanitation, safety, responsiveness, and administration. This divergence suggests that outcomes are highly dependent on specific shifts, personnel, or areas of the facility. For prospective families or residents, the reviews point to clear strengths to look for (robust therapy services, attentive named staff, active programming, clean rooms and linens) and clear warning signs to check in person (smell, temperature control, evidence of pests, call-response times, staff supervision, parking logistics).
In sum, Royal of Fairhaven Nursing Center receives strong praise for its clinical rehabilitation services, compassionate individual staff members, and engaging resident programming, but also draws serious criticism for inconsistent care, sanitation and safety concerns, and administrative reliability. The reviews support a recommendation to perform careful, targeted due diligence: visit at different times and shifts, observe cleanliness and temperature, inquire about how agency staff are integrated and supervised, ask for specific safety and incident-reporting protocols, and talk with families of current residents about their recent experiences. These steps will help determine whether the facility’s commonly reported strengths are present in a prospective resident’s likely day-to-day experience and whether the documented risks have been addressed by management.
