Overall sentiment in the reviews for Cedarbrook is highly polarized: many reviewers praise the physical plant, amenities, and certain caregiving teams, while an overlapping set of reviews describe serious quality and safety concerns that have led some families to take regulatory or relocation actions. Multiple reviewers emphasize that the facility itself appears attractive — newer, well maintained, spotless in some accounts, with a large garden and on-site wellness/rehabilitation services that provide convenient daily physical therapy. In those positive accounts, staff are described as friendly, respectful, compassionate, and attentive; residents are said to feel part of a community, receive individualized attention (including feeding for residents who cannot feed themselves), and benefit from ongoing activities and nourishing meals.
However, a significant cluster of reviews raises alarming clinical and operational issues. Several reports allege unsanitary hygiene practices, including the use of washcloths to clean feces and an asserted suspension of accepted hygiene protocols; reviewers state that this policy change was not disclosed to residents or families and in at least one case was linked to a skin rash requiring antibiotics. These accounts claim that the executive director suspended the policy and that a health department investigation occurred. Separate but related safety concerns include medication mishandling: reviewers report medications not being administered for extended periods (one report cites a six-week omission) and the head nurse allegedly admitting to medication omissions in the May–June timeframe. There is also mention of a serious fall that prompted a facility investigation. These are not isolated minor complaints — they represent potential infection-control, medication safety, and reporting failures that families found serious enough to plan moves and to warn others.
Staffing and training emerge as central, recurring themes with considerable variability. Several reviews praise ‘‘amazing’’ caregivers and an attentive nursing director in memory care, describing staff who go the extra mile and provide exemplary personal care. In contrast, numerous other reports detail poor staffing levels, high turnover, and poorly trained or incompetent caregivers. Specific behavioral issues are cited (caregivers on phones, chatting while residents go without assistance) and consequences described include residents not being taken to activities, being left unclean or ignored, and inability to access memory care services due to staffing shortages. This variation suggests inconsistent performance across shifts or units and points to systemic workforce stability and training problems.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Positive reviewers note a good schedule of activities and variety in programming, along with nourishing meals. Negative reviewers describe inconsistent dining service, repetitive or identical meals, and overall dissatisfaction with the food experience. Cleanliness and environmental hygiene are likewise mixed: some families describe spotlessly maintained spaces and impeccable personal care, while others report unsanitary or dirty living conditions and pest issues (gnats). This juxtaposition reinforces the pattern of highly variable experiences depending on which staff or units a resident interacts with.
Management and accountability are recurring concerns. Reviews reference management responsiveness in both positive and negative ways: some note attentive leadership and corrective action, while others point to lack of disclosure about serious policy changes, inconsistent communication, and insufficient accountability when incidents occur. Specific mentions include an executive director who suspended a hygiene policy (as reported by reviewers), a health department investigation, and a head nurse admitting to medication omission. Families report a mix of improvements and continued disappointment after staffing and management changes, indicating that leadership turnover may be a factor in inconsistent implementation of standards.
Patterns and takeaways: the most significant themes are (1) strong facility amenities and potential for high-quality care when staffing and leadership are functioning well; and (2) serious, recurrent safety and quality lapses tied to hygiene practices, medication administration, staffing shortages, and inconsistent caregiver competence. The coexistence of glowing reports and very critical ones suggests variability across time, shifts, or units — not a uniform level of care. For prospective residents and families, the reviews call for focused, specific due diligence: ask about current staffing ratios and turnover, request written infection-control and medication-administration policies, inquire how the facility communicates incidents to families and regulators, and seek recent inspection reports or evidence of corrective actions from management. If possible, talk directly to families of current residents in the specific unit of interest and verify staffing levels during different shifts to get a clearer, up-to-date picture of the care environment.
