The reviews for Dexter House HealthCare present a deeply polarized and troubling portrait: a minority of reviewers describe compassionate, professional, and effective care, while a substantial portion recount neglect, safety risks, and unacceptable facility conditions. Positive reports typically single out individual caregivers—CNAs, nurses, and some physical therapists—who provided respectful, attentive, and sometimes exceptional hands-on care. Several reviewers praised specific staff by name, cited successful therapy outcomes and transitions home, noted effective coordination with outside providers, and described meaningful end-of-life and activity programming. A few reviewers also reported recent improvements tied to ownership or staffing changes.
However, the dominant themes are negative and systemic. Many families report poor hygiene and sanitation throughout the building: persistent urine and feces odors, reports of rodents, filthy bathrooms, stained or mismatched furniture, broken fixtures, and a general sense that the facility is old and not well-maintained. These conditions are not isolated complaints; multiple accounts describe repeated, unresolved maintenance and cleanliness issues and a pervasive impression that the physical environment compromises resident dignity and safety.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most alarming areas raised. Numerous reviewers report medication mishandling (missed doses, improper timing, overuse of sedatives or antibiotics, and disturbing accounts of nurses 'spooning' or otherwise improperly administering medications). There are direct allegations that call buttons were ignored or even turned off, staff on breaks left residents unattended, and aides left residents soiled or in filth. Several reviewers described serious medical consequences—falls, infected surgical wounds, rehospitalizations, MRSA concerns, and one account saying a parent 'almost died'—leading some to urge immediate regulatory action or closure. These reports indicate both acute incidents and chronic lapses in basic nursing care and oversight.
Staff behavior and facility culture are presented as highly inconsistent. While some staff are praised as compassionate and professional, many reviewers characterize caregivers as rude, aloof, lazy, or dishonest. Repeated complaints allege theft from residents, staff covering for one another, bullying, and a 'gang mentality' that discourages accountability. Reviewers frequently blame understaffing and burnout—citing overworked nurses who cannot answer questions, slow responsiveness to pain or toileting needs, and management that minimizes or excuses failures. Several accounts name unhelpful or unresponsive managers and directors, with specific complaints about administrative dishonesty, missed appointments, and failure to investigate or remedy incidents.
Dining and amenities receive mixed assessments: some reviewers call the food 'horrible' or 'prison-quality' with limited options, cold meals, and no alternatives, while others report acceptable or good food. Rehab and therapy services are similarly mixed—some reviewers praise the gym and therapists for producing good outcomes, whereas others report insufficient therapy sessions, ineffective rehabilitation, or a desire for more frequent/ intensive therapy. Additional practical issues include non-working Wi‑Fi, parking problems, limited shower access, and uncomfortable or broken furniture that can affect recovery (e.g., an uncomfortable chair after knee surgery).
Taken together, the reviews suggest a facility with pockets of very good caregiving overwhelmed by systemic problems in cleanliness, safety, staffing, and management oversight. The pattern is highly polarized: families who encounter the engaged, attentive staff members report gratitude and positive outcomes, while many others report neglect, medical errors, theft, and environment-related health risks. For prospective families this means outcomes may depend heavily on which staff are on duty, the level of family involvement, and recent changes in ownership or leadership. Several reviewers recommended avoiding the facility or requesting regulatory inspection, while a smaller number strongly recommended Dexter House due to specific staff and therapy strengths. Any decision should weigh these polarized experiences, ask for documentation of staff ratios, infection-control practices, incident history, and conduct in-person visits at different times of day to observe staffing, cleanliness, meal service, and responsiveness.
