Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with a strong and recurring theme: the facility has many individual staff members and departments that families and residents praise highly, but there are systemic issues that undermine consistent, reliable care. Positive comments focus heavily on people — nurses, CNAs, therapists, admissions personnel, and a few named clinicians receive repeated praise for compassion, competence, and personalized attention. Rehab and therapy in particular receive multiple commendations; several reviewers credited therapy staff and the new therapy gym with meaningful progress in mobility and recovery. Admissions and social services staff (notably Charity and Sherry in these accounts) are consistently described as helpful, professional, and supportive during intake and transitions. Renovated areas, a clean remodeled wing, family rooms, a bird sanctuary, pet-friendly policies, proximity to hospital services, and a welcoming rehab environment are often cited as facility strengths.
Despite those positives, serious and recurrent concerns appear across many reviews. Staffing levels and consistency are a dominant negative theme: reviewers describe being short-staffed (including alarming ratios like one CNA for many residents), long response times to call bells, delays in giving medications (including pain meds), and under-staffing that contributes to missed care. Medication problems are frequently mentioned beyond timing delays — examples include medications running out, medication changes without informed consent, medications being unsecured, and improper medication administration. Several reviewers reported that pain medications were delayed or unavailable, and one review mentioned powerful sedation on arrival. These issues are significant because they directly affect resident comfort and safety.
Cleanliness, hygiene, and infection-control issues are another major cluster of concerns. Many reviewers reported urine odors, carpeting that smells of urine or bacteria, rooms returned in a dirty or disheveled state, blood or dried food on shirts, and specific end-of-life hygiene neglect (e.g., unclean skin behind ears). There are also reports of COVID nondisclosure and at least one instance where records were refused and COVID exposure was allegedly not disclosed on discharge. Theft and missing personal items (clothing, cannabis gummies, other belongings) and security lapses (door propped open, exposed access codes, weekend front desk unstaffed) compound family concerns about accountability and resident safety.
Food quality is frequently criticized: multiple reviewers call the dining poor, bland, overcooked, undercooked, or burnt, and request better options or a more skilled head cook and accommodations for allergies/dislikes. While some reviewers appreciate aspects like good coffee or fresh food in renovated areas, food remains a consistent area for improvement. Facility areas are described inconsistently: the remodeled wing and rehab spaces are noted as clean and attractive, but the long-term side is reported to lack air conditioning, has rooms that cannot open windows, shared bathrooms, and strong odors. This suggests uneven maintenance and investment across different parts of the building.
Management, communication, and administrative follow-through show a split pattern. Several reviewers praise admissions and particular administrative staff as professional and helpful, while others accuse management of dishonesty, ignoring complaints, and failing to act on documented problems. Families documented failed discharge coordination (orders not followed, discharge planned before tests completed, being sent home early), lack of follow-up on complaints, and a perceived culture of poor accountability. Contrastingly, some accounts describe visible administration involvement and improvements (new hires, administration stepping in). This indicates variability in unit-level leadership and in how management responds to issues.
Care consistency and scope of services also vary by reviewer. Some families report exemplary, resident-centered care: staff going beyond duty, using personal funds to help residents, providing emotional support, and delivering exceptional end-of-life compassion when present. Others describe neglect, minimal rehab (residents kept in bed or chair all day), poor emergency response (failure to call ER or notify family), and medication or treatment omissions. There are reports that the dementia unit and activities department are doing well, with meaningful programming, while other units experience idleness or staff congregating in common areas. These discrepancies suggest that individual team culture and staff competency heavily influence resident experience.
In short: Medilodge of St. Clair appears to have strong pockets — compassionate, skilled clinicians, effective rehab teams, engaged admissions and social services, and attractive renovated spaces — that provide excellent outcomes for many residents. However, systemic problems are repeatedly called out: understaffing, medication and safety lapses, inconsistent cleanliness and infection control, food-quality issues, and uneven management responsiveness. These patterns create polarized experiences where some families strongly recommend the facility and credit staff for recovery and compassionate care, while others report neglect, safety risks, and administrative failures. For prospective residents and families, the facility's strengths in rehabilitation and certain staff members are notable, but the recurrent operational and safety concerns suggest the need for careful, specific inquiries during tours: ask about staffing ratios, medication management protocols, unit-specific conditions (which wing you would be placed in), security practices, infection-control policies, dining accommodations, and how the facility handles complaints and discharge coordination. If possible, meet and observe the direct care team who will be assigned and request written documentation of care plans, medication procedures, and cleaning/maintenance schedules before committing.
