Overall sentiment in the collected reviews is highly mixed but leans toward concerning when it comes to long-term care, safety, and day-to-day nursing practices. Many reviewers praise the rehabilitation (PT/OT) program and single out individual staff and social workers who provided clear communication and compassionate care. However, a substantial number of detailed reports describe systemic problems—most notably chronic understaffing that appears to drive slow responses to call lights, missed personal care, inadequate supervision in memory care, and multiple safety incidents including falls. These operational deficits have led some families to report serious adverse outcomes and to file complaints with authorities.
Care quality and resident safety are recurring themes. Several reviews recount situations where residents received delayed assistance after surgery, had call lights unanswered for long periods, or suffered from hygiene neglect (wet/soiled diapers left on, residents kept in the same clothes for days). There are also specific clinical concerns such as feeding tubes not being properly positioned, wounds not being checked for days, increased pneumonia risk from poor positioning, and missed or inappropriate dietary accommodations (including for Crohn's and cardiac/diabetic diets). A few reviews explicitly describe alleged elder abuse or staff behavior that felt neglectful or mean, and multiple families reported having to sit with their loved ones because staff coverage was insufficient.
Staffing, communication, and management issues are strongly linked in the reviews. While several reviewers praise individual staff members—nurses, aides, therapists, and social workers such as Justina David—others describe inconsistent competence, rude or crabby attitudes, and poor floor-level sanitation practices. Communication with families is variable: some reviewers note excellent communication and timely updates, while others report not being informed about hospitalizations, transfers, or significant care issues. Administrative matters, including transfer and insurance problems and perceptions of management or investor-driven decisions, were mentioned as contributing to inconsistent care.
Facility and amenities receive mixed feedback. Many reviewers appreciated the smaller, homey size of the building, found it clean and odor-free, and enjoyed activities like bingo and hair services. The rehab services are repeatedly praised for efficiency and good outcomes. At the same time, others noted outdated, dingy, or small rooms, maintenance concerns, and variability in meal quality—with reports ranging from "good food" to tasteless or hard meat. Some families raised concerns about value for money relative to care quality, particularly when long-term care or memory-care services were needed.
A notable pattern is the contrast between short-term rehab stays and longer-term memory/long-term care experiences. Rehab patients generally report better experiences: good therapy, attentive staff, and faster responsiveness. Conversely, long-term and memory care reviews more frequently report understaffing, supervision problems, and hygiene/medical neglect. This suggests variability depending on the unit, staff on duty, or level of care required.
In summary, The Emeralds at Faribault appears to deliver strong rehabilitation services and has staff members who are caring and communicative. However, multiple reviews raise serious concerns about staffing levels, consistent nursing care, supervision in memory care, hygiene, and communication in other cases. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive rehab and therapy reputation against repeated reports of neglect, safety incidents, and management/operational inconsistencies. If considering this facility, ask specific questions about staffing ratios, supervision in memory care, wound and tubing protocols, dietary accommodations, how families are notified of incidents or hospitalizations, and which staff members are currently overseeing long-term care units.
