Overall impression: The reviews for Edenbrook Rochester West are highly polarized, with a substantial number of reviewers praising the staff and community atmosphere while a significant minority report serious care, safety, and management failures. Positive comments repeatedly highlight warm, friendly, and professional caregivers who create a calm, home-like environment. Negative comments focus on neglectful or unsafe care, unresponsiveness, and facility or operational shortcomings. This pattern suggests that experiences vary widely between residents, shifts, or units.
Staff and interpersonal interactions: Many reviewers emphasize that staff are welcoming, kind, and genuinely caring — attributes that contribute to residents feeling respected, comfortable, and inclined to remain long-term. Multiple accounts describe nurses and caregivers as attentive, sincere, hardworking, and proud of their work; visitors and volunteers report enjoyable visits and hospitality. Conversely, several reviews describe alarming interpersonal problems: staff intimidation, yelling, rude behavior during training periods, and at least one report of a director being dismissive. Language barriers were raised by some reviewers who said staff 'barely spoke English,' which may contribute to communication breakdowns. Overall, interpersonal quality appears to be inconsistent: some shifts or individuals deliver excellent, compassionate interactions, while others do not.
Care quality and safety: A troubling subset of reviews alleges neglect and potential safety incidents. Specific claims include withheld showers, feeding neglect (with one reviewer implicating this in a death), oxygen tubing being left off, injuries caused by staff, and misinformation about resident care. Reviewers also cited misdiagnoses, delayed medical responses, and staff failing to listen to symptoms. These are serious concerns because they relate directly to resident health and safety. At the same time, other reviewers explicitly praise the caregivers and nurses for good care, indicating that care quality may be inconsistent across different times, staff members, or resident assignments.
Staffing, responsiveness, and management: Understaffing is a repeated theme tied to many negative experiences: poor staff ratios, long toilet/bathroom wait times, and requests for more CNAs or aides. Staffing shortages are linked in the reviews to delays in care and reduced attention to resident needs. Management responsiveness is also mixed in the feedback — while one reviewer noted encouragement to report issues, others said complaints went unaddressed and described management as dismissive. This combination of reported understaffing and inconsistent management follow-up likely contributes to the variability in resident outcomes and experiences reflected in the reviews.
Facilities, housekeeping, and equipment: Comments about the physical environment are split. Some reviewers describe a clean, calm facility with staff taking pride in their work; others call the facility dirty, smelly, unorganized, and in need of housekeeping improvements. Specific operational problems were mentioned: lifts that barely fit under beds, running out of supplies, claustrophobic rooms, and a parking lot in need of repair. These maintenance and equipment issues can affect daily comfort and safety, and, when combined with staffing problems, may exacerbate service and hygiene shortfalls.
Resident experience, mood, and community life: Several reviewers emphasize a positive community feel — warm visits, happy residents, and helpful staff creating a welcoming environment. Some indicate they would like to spend more time there or plan to stay. In contrast, other reviewers report residents experiencing fear, depression, and a decision not to return, describing the environment as smelly, depressing, and sad. The coexistence of both upbeat and distressed descriptions points again to inconsistent resident experiences that likely depend on which staff, shifts, or areas are involved.
Notable patterns and concluding observations: The dominant pattern across reviews is inconsistency. Positive feedback concentrates on staff demeanor and community warmth, while the most serious negative feedback centers on neglect, safety incidents, medical responsiveness, and management failures. Many of the negative items (withheld showers, feeding neglect, oxygen tubing errors, misdiagnosis, and unaddressed complaints) are severe and merit attention. At the same time, the volume of positive testimonials about caring, friendly staff indicates that good practice exists within the facility. For prospective residents or family members, these reviews suggest the importance of direct inquiry and observation about staffing levels, incident reporting and follow-up, hygiene and housekeeping practices, and the unit or shift-level differences in care. The facility appears capable of providing a warm, home-like environment, but the reported variability in safety, care, and cleanliness is significant and should be investigated further by those making placement decisions.
