Overall impression: Reviews for Sheffield Manor are strongly mixed, with a significant split between families and residents who describe attentive, clean, cost-accessible care and others who describe serious safety, staffing, and professionalism problems. Positive reviews emphasize compassionate direct-care staff, clean rooms and grounds, effective therapy and recovery support, and value as a low-income/Medicaid-accepting facility. Negative reviews contain repeated, serious allegations about infection control, medication management, resident safety, staff misconduct, and administrative unresponsiveness. The combination of high praise from some and grave concerns from others suggests inconsistent performance across shifts, units, or time periods.
Care quality and clinical practice: Many reviewers describe good hands-on care — assistance with hygiene, clean linens, dental/hearing attention, and timely resolution of routine concerns. Conversely, some reviews raise alarming clinical safety issues: nurses allegedly not wearing gloves during IV changes and med passes, medication arrival delays up to 48 hours, and claims that medications were billed but not provided. There are also allegations of malpractice and at least one reviewer associating a resident death with substandard care. These clinical concerns point to potential lapses in infection control, medication administration processes, and clinical oversight that require immediate attention if accurate.
Staff behavior, professionalism, and leadership: Staff experience is polarized. Multiple reviews praise specific caregivers, social workers, and teamwork, and several call out long-tenured leaders (named Adm. Mr. Z and DON Ms. Jo) as strong points. However, many others report unprofessional and disrespectful behavior: rude receptionists, hung-up phone calls, disrespectful phone manner, staff profanity, and even allegations of a security guard using drugs on duty. Some families describe staff like family and strong leadership, while others describe the administration as unresponsive and the front desk as rude. This mixed feedback suggests variability in staff training, accountability, or culture across shifts or departments.
Safety and environment: Safety concerns are recurring and serious in some summaries. Multiple reviewers describe residents wandering unattended, residents selling and using drugs on-site, and insufficient supervision on floors — creating what some termed a 'zoo-like' or 'house of horrors' atmosphere. There are reports of patient-on-patient assault and traumatic experiences for families. At the same time, other reviewers report no foul odors, clean spaces, and well-kept grounds. These contradictory views suggest pockets of both safe, well-managed care areas and troubling lapses in safety and supervision elsewhere within the facility.
Facility, cleanliness, and amenities: Several reviewers complimented the well-maintained grounds, nice common areas, and clean rooms. Others note that the inside is outdated, that the exterior can be misleading, or that parts of the facility felt dirty or in need of updates. The consensus on cleanliness is mixed but leans positive for routine housekeeping in many reports, while structural or cosmetic updates appear wanted by multiple reviewers.
Dining and therapies: Dining receives mixed feedback. Some reviewers praise the food as excellent and enjoyable; others reported cold or uncooked meals. Therapy and recovery services were positively noted by several families who said therapy staff were 'awesome' and helpful in recovery. This again points to inconsistent experience — some residents benefit from good dietary and therapy services while others encounter quality control issues.
Communication and customer service: Communication breakdowns recur in negative reviews: families report poor notification practices, slow responses when trying to locate or speak about a resident, and administrative staff who are unhelpful or rude. Positive reviews sometimes mention prompt responses and good attention to concerns, indicating that customer service performance may vary by staff member or shift.
Allegations of fraud and severe incidents: A number of reviews allege billing irregularities or Medicaid fraud (medications billed but not provided) and at least one reviewer reported pursuing legal action related to a death or malpractice claim. These are serious allegations and, if accurate, warrant investigation by appropriate oversight bodies. Reviews also include allegations of illicit staff behavior and security problems that affect resident safety.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is variability—some units, shifts, or staff provide excellent, compassionate care in a clean environment, while other times or areas show dangerous lapses in clinical practice, supervision, professionalism, and communication. For prospective residents or families: consider in-person visits across multiple times of day (including evenings/nights) to observe staffing levels, supervision, infection-control practices, medication administration processes, staff-resident interactions, and reception/administrative responsiveness. Ask management specific questions about infection-control protocols, medication ordering and tracking, staff training and turnover, security and contraband policies, incident reporting, and details about leadership tenure and oversight. Current or prospective families who observe dangerous practices should document incidents, escalate to nursing leadership and administration, and, if necessary, contact state licensing or ombudsman resources.
Bottom line: Sheffield Manor receives substantial praise for compassionate caregivers, cleanliness in many areas, helpful therapy, and affordability for Medicaid recipients, but simultaneously receives multiple, serious complaints about infection control, medication management, safety, staff professionalism, and administration. The facility may deliver acceptable care for many residents, but the recurring serious allegations warrant careful, thorough on-site evaluation and follow-up with licensing/oversight authorities before making placement decisions.
