Overall sentiment: Reviews for Laurels of Mt. Pleasant are highly mixed, with a clear and recurring pattern: frontline caregivers (nurses, CNAs, aides, therapists, and activities staff) receive strong, often glowing praise for compassion, attentiveness, and individualized attention, while systemic issues with administration, staffing, communication, and safety create serious concerns for some residents and families. Many reviews express gratitude for specific employees and for departments such as activities, social work, and housekeeping when those teams function well; however, an important subset of reviews documents lapses in basic care and safety that are severe and potentially dangerous.
Staff and caregiving quality: A common and emphatic theme is that many direct-care staff are excellent — described as kind, attentive, compassionate, and going "above and beyond." Several reviewers named individual employees (e.g., Margarita, Jason Alexander, Tiffany, Tina, Courtney) as exemplars. Activities staff are frequently commended for robust programming and making residents feel engaged. Social work and some therapists received praise for communication and coordination. At the same time, reviewers repeatedly reported understaffing, rushed sign-outs, and high turnover that undermine consistency of care. These operational problems are repeatedly tied to delayed responses to call lights, missed assistance with toileting, eating, or hygiene, and variable quality from shift to shift.
Clinical safety and medical care: Multiple reports describe troubling clinical failures: missed or incorrectly administered medications (including a reported overdose), medications left off, and communication breakdowns that resulted in omitted diabetes medication. More alarming are accounts of refusal or delay to escalate care, denial of ER transfer when families requested it, and reports of residents being left without oxygen or unattended for long periods. There are also reports of safety lapses such as missing call buttons/bed remotes, pills found on the floor, unattended falls, and a wheelchair escape attempt. These incidents suggest not only episodic clinical error but also potential systemic deficits in supervision, escalation protocols, and staff training.
Infection control, hygiene, and basic care: Several reviewers raised infection-control and hygiene concerns — notably PPE noncompliance (e.g., ungloved handling of a pic line), missed bathing for days, residents left in soiled clothing, diapers piled up in rooms, and limited or nonexistent help with washing. These accounts, combined with reports of delayed medical attention, paint a picture of neglect for some residents. Conversely, many other reviewers describe the facility as clean, odor-free, and well-maintained; this contradiction likely indicates variability across units, wings, shifts, or time periods.
Rehab, therapy, and equipment: Therapy experiences are mixed. Some families praise knowledgeable, effective therapists and report meaningful improvement; others describe therapists as incompetent or unhelpful and note that the rehab/PT room lacks sufficient equipment variety. There are also mentions of being charged for services that were not delivered. These inconsistencies point toward uneven clinical capability and resource allocation within the rehabilitation program.
Facility environment, housekeeping, and laundry: Numerous reviewers praised the facility's layout, courtyard, and non-hospital feel, and many reported good housekeeping and cleanliness. In contrast, others reported dark, dirty hallways, unpleasant odors, clutter, and unclean rooms. Laundry complaints are a distinct theme: lost, mixed-up, or stained clothing and slow or nonresponsive housekeeping were reported repeatedly, causing distress to families. These polarized observations indicate that environmental quality may be dependent on specific units or times and that housekeeping may be overwhelmed at times.
Administration, communication, and policy issues: Administrative leadership and communication are frequently criticized. Families reported inconsistent information, mixed messages about next steps and follow-ups, slow or nontransparent discharge planning, lost housing opportunities because of extended stays, and poor coordination (e.g., dialysis transport scheduling issues). Vaccine or quarantine policies also caused friction in at least one case. Positive comments about individual managers exist, but structural issues — poor communication, rushed sign-outs, and lack of accountability when problems occur — are commonly cited.
Notable patterns and risk indicators: A concerning cluster of comments involves delayed or denied escalation of care, medication errors, hygiene neglect, and infection-control lapses; several reports link these to understaffing and poor administration. While many families experienced compassionate, high-quality day-to-day caregiving and would recommend the facility, other families report outcomes as severe as hospitalization and death following perceived neglect. That dichotomy underscores variability in resident experience and suggests monitoring and due diligence by families, particularly for residents with complex medical needs (e.g., dementia, COPD, dialysis).
Bottom line and practical considerations: Laurels of Mt. Pleasant appears to have a strong cadre of dedicated frontline employees who provide compassionate and often exceptional care; activities, social work, and some therapy staff are strengths. However, the facility also shows recurrent operational weaknesses — staffing shortages, uneven clinical practices, communication failures, hygiene and infection-control lapses, and safety incidents — that have resulted in serious negative outcomes for some residents. Prospective residents and families should weigh the high praise for individual caregivers against the documented systemic problems. When choosing or monitoring a stay here, consider asking specific questions about nurse-to-resident ratios, PPE and infection-control protocols, medication administration checks, escalation/transfer policies, laundry procedures, and how the facility addresses and learns from safety incidents. Regular, detailed check-ins and documented care plans may help mitigate the variability reported in these reviews.
