Overall sentiment: Reviews for Queen Anne Nursing Home are mixed but strongly polarized. Many reviewers praise the facility for its cleanliness, strong rehabilitation services, caring CNAs, varied activities, and good food. At the same time, a substantial number of reviewers report serious lapses in personal care, communication, medication handling, and management responsiveness. The result is a facility that can provide excellent outcomes and quality of life for some residents—particularly those receiving rehab or who interact regularly with committed frontline staff—while leaving others with distressing and, in several accounts, potentially dangerous experiences.
Care quality and clinical services: Rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapy) is one of the facility's most consistent strengths in the reviews. Multiple families describe “wonderful” rehab that enabled independence, with therapists viewed as professional and effective. Pain management and therapy outcomes are highlighted positively by several reviewers. However, there are recurrent complaints about variability in clinical follow-through: delayed rehab consults, limited therapy for some patients, and an inconsistent approach to activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bathing. Several reviewers reported days without showers or assistance toileting, including instances where a bedpan was used instead of helping a resident to the bathroom. Medication management is another critical concern: reports include mishandled or lost medications, late deliveries, and general unreliability in med administration, which some reviewers linked to adverse outcomes.
Staffing, communication, and culture: Frontline staff — especially CNAs and some nurses — receive frequent commendation for compassion and going above and beyond. Named staff (e.g., Rita and Dyana) and activity staff were singled out for exceptional service. Many reviewers say aides are kind, remembered residents, and contributed to a warm environment. Conversely, there are consistent complaints about staff being rushed, inattentive, or rude; language barriers with nurses; aides found sleeping in hallways; and long wait times for assistance. Upper management and social work receive notable criticism for being dismissive or unhelpful, and the discharge process has been described as rushed. Communication breakdowns between staff and families are a recurring theme, leaving relatives feeling uninformed or ignored.
Facility, cleanliness, and amenities: The physical environment gets largely positive comments: rooms described as homey and well-decorated, with pleasant common areas, a fish pond, and recent deep cleaning of rooms. Many reviewers emphasize that the facility is clean, neat, and odor-free. Amenities such as private rooms with views, pet-friendly visitation, nail and hair services, and an easy digital sign-in are appreciated. At the same time, a minority of reviews note lapses in housekeeping or maintenance, and at least one reviewer explicitly reported a room that was not being swept or cleaned to expected standards.
Activities and quality of life: Activity programming is frequently praised and appears to be a strong point: reviewers mention a wide variety of meaningful activities (bingo, music, coffee and ice cream carts, daily word searches, and organized events) that boost residents’ engagement and quality of life. Activity staff are described as organized and effective; many residents were said to enjoy social interaction and daily programming.
Safety, serious incidents, and special-care limitations: Several reviews raise severe concerns about safety, including reports of neglect leading to dehydration, abusive or unsafe patient handling, and issues with residents wandering or leaving the facility. These accounts are less numerous than the positive ones but are significant because they describe potentially dangerous situations. Another structural limitation is the absence of an Alzheimer’s-specific program, which some reviewers identified as a concern for families needing specialized dementia care.
Administration and onboarding: Families reported inconsistent administrative practices: no consistent welcome packet or orientation instructions, lost clothing due to labeling errors, and uneven discharge procedures. COVID-related access restrictions also contributed to communication issues for some visitors. These administrative shortcomings exacerbate the perception of unreliable or fragmented care for certain families.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is variability. Many people experience attentive, competent care—especially in rehab and from dedicated CNAs—paired with a clean, friendly environment and robust activities. Yet, a nontrivial subset of reviewers encountered serious deficits: missed ADLs (e.g., showers), medication mishandling, rude or rushed staff, and alarming reports of neglect or abuse. These mixed reports suggest that quality at Queen Anne Nursing Home may depend heavily on shift, unit, or individual staff members.
For prospective residents and families: It is prudent to verify specifics before placement. Ask about current med-management policies, ADL schedules (bathing/toileting assistance), staffing ratios on the relevant unit and shifts, procedures for lost items/clothing, availability of dementia-specific care (if needed), and details of the rehab program. Request to meet core staff and leadership, inquire about incident reporting and follow-up, and, if possible, speak with families of current residents in the same unit. The reviews indicate Queen Anne can deliver excellent rehab, strong CNA care, and a positive environment for many residents, but also that there are meaningful risks tied to inconsistent staffing, communication failures, and occasional serious safety lapses that families should probe directly.
