Overall sentiment across the reviews for Evergreen Senior Care & Rehab Center is mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise the facility for its clean environment, strong rehabilitation services, and many compassionate staff members, while a distinct subset raise serious concerns about administrative practices, understaffing, inconsistent staff behavior, and safety-related incidents. Positive comments often emphasize attentive nurses and therapy teams, a family-like atmosphere, robust activity programming, and high satisfaction with meals and cleanliness. Negative comments range from service quality inconsistencies and rude front-desk interactions to allegations of neglect, privacy breaches, and problematic administrative conduct.
Care quality and staff performance are central, and the reviews present a dichotomy. Many residents and families describe excellent hands-on care: therapists and rehab staff are frequently singled out as 'the best,' and nurses and aides are described as loving, respectful, and deserving of raises. These reviewers report clean rooms, effective rehabilitation, and staff who work as a team with a patient-centered mindset. Conversely, multiple reviews highlight troubling care lapses—missed feedings, unanswered call lights for extended periods, failure to provide supplements, and situations interpreted as neglect. Several comments attribute these lapses to understaffing or staff who appear disengaged, describing some employees as merely 'here for a job.' The inconsistency—where some staff are exceptional and others are negligent—creates an unpredictable experience for families.
Administration, documentation, and communication emerge as notable problem areas in the negative reviews. Specific allegations include unprofessional behavior by administrators, allegedly falsified or outdated paperwork, and poor or delayed communication with families (including failures to timely notify relatives about critical events or death). One review describes an overcharge to hold a room that led to additional hospitalization, and other reviewers reported that visitors felt condescended to or treated as a nuisance. Privacy concerns are also reported: a few reviews claim that residents' records were read by outsiders, which raises data-protection and confidentiality red flags. These administrative and communication issues exacerbate family frustrations even when frontline clinical staff are competent.
Safety, training, and ethical concerns are raised strongly by several reviewers. Comments allege inadequate CNA/nurse/doctor training and lack of staff awareness, and at least one review calls for state supervision. Some reviewers make serious claims about unethical decision-making and alleged anti-Christian or anti-health attitudes among staff, while others recount residents or loved ones dying with poor notification practices and without family present. Whether systemic or anecdotal, these reports indicate risk factors that prospective residents and regulators would likely consider significant and deserving of investigation.
Facilities, dining, and visitation policies receive mostly positive notes but with caveats. The facility is repeatedly described as clean, neat, and odor-free; many reviewers praise meal quality and activity options. A few note that the building is older, and some mention that there can be 'too much food' or insufficient assistance at mealtimes for residents who need help. Pandemic-era precautions such as COVID testing before visits and appointment-based visiting were appreciated by some but criticized by others for limiting access. Cost is another pain point for a subset of reviewers who describe the facility as expensive and cite billing disputes.
Patterns and practical takeaways: the strongest positive theme is the quality of direct-care clinical staff (especially therapy), cleanliness, and resident-centered activities. The strongest negative themes center on administrative transparency, staffing levels, communication with families, and specific safety/neglect incidents. For families considering Evergreen, reviews suggest weighing the likelihood of receiving excellent day-to-day clinical care against the possibility of administrative friction, variable staff responsiveness, and reported lapses tied to understaffing. Areas for facility improvement implied by the reviews include increasing staffing levels (especially at meal times and for responsive care), strengthening training and oversight of CNAs and nursing staff, enforcing privacy protections, improving administrative professionalism and billing transparency, and improving family communication and visitation policies. Given the mix of high praise and serious accusations, prospective residents and families should tour the facility, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and protocols, request documentation of training and turnover rates, and seek references from current families where possible.
