Overall sentiment: Reviews of Diversicare of Eupora are deeply mixed but skew strongly toward serious concerns. A notable minority of reviewers praise the therapy department, individual caregivers, and responsive management, describing some staff and therapists as compassionate and effective. However, a large portion of reviews report systemic problems that suggest inconsistent and, at times, unsafe care. The most frequently cited themes are understaffing, unresponsiveness to resident needs, poor hygiene, and signs of neglect leading to medical deterioration.
Care quality and clinical safety: Multiple reviews describe substandard clinical care including untreated bedsores that became infected, missed medications, improper catheter/incontinence care, and failure to recognize or treat infections (UTIs, oral yeast infections, pneumonia). There are repeated accounts of dehydration, decline in mobility and mental clarity, and hospital transfers — in some cases family members requested immediate transfers home due to deterioration. Several reviewers explicitly state that residents were not bathed for long periods, were left in soiled linens, or were left in wheelchairs for hours. These reports point to both neglectful care practices and dangerous lapses in clinical monitoring.
Staffing, responsiveness, and behavior: Understaffing and long wait times are pervasive themes. Call lights and requests for assistance reportedly go unanswered for extended periods. Families report difficulty contacting staff and a lack of communication with physicians. Staff behavior is reported inconsistently: while some nurses and therapists are described as wonderful and caring, other staff are accused of gossiping, bullying, being indifferent to residents’ dignity, and in extreme cases, physical mistreatment. Leadership issues are frequently cited — notes ignored, poor supervision, high turnover, and a culture where bullying is tolerated and leadership hides behind corporate structures.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Comments about therapy are notably mixed. Several reviews praise the therapy department as excellent and a real strength of the facility. Conversely, other reviewers call physical therapy poor and explicitly advise that the facility is not a good place for rehabilitation. This divergence suggests variability in therapy quality by staff member, shift, or patient experience rather than a consistent standard of care across all cases.
Facilities, hygiene, and environment: Numerous reviewers report dirty conditions, soiled bedding, old or worn furniture, and an overall lack of cleanliness in day rooms and resident rooms. Overcrowded rooms are mentioned, as are broken in-room amenities (non-working TVs and phones). Specific complaints include soiled clothes left in drawers with clean clothes, stolen items (blankets, clothing), and appalling hygiene in common areas. Such environmental issues compound clinical risks and negatively affect residents’ dignity and comfort.
Dining and daily living: Meals receive poor marks in many reviews — described as unvaried (with repeated references to meals consisting mostly of potatoes), unappetizing, and inadequate. There are also reports of missed feeding or signs of starvation/dehydration. These complaints align with broader themes of insufficient staffing and poor oversight of basic daily-care tasks.
Management, communication, and systemic concerns: Several reviewers accuse management of failing to address staff problems, of prioritizing administrative/financial goals (Medicaid/Medicare profitability) over resident care, and of poor communication with families. While some reviewers specifically praise management and state that leadership was supportive and communicative, the dominant narrative is one of leadership failure, inconsistent accountability, and a toxic work environment that allows neglectful practices to persist.
Notable adverse outcomes and extreme allegations: Some reviews allege severe neglect leading to hospitalizations and at least one reported death linked to facility care. Allegations include physical mistreatment, severe infections from neglected wounds, and prolonged untreated medical conditions. These are serious claims and are echoed by multiple families expressing that the facility is 'not a good place' and should be avoided.
Patterns and conclusions: The reviews portray a facility with highly variable performance: pockets of genuinely good care (notably some therapists and certain nursing staff) exist alongside recurring systemic failures — especially on weekends or during understaffed shifts. The most consistent red flags are understaffing, delayed or absent responses to needs, poor hygiene, untreated wounds/infections, and management/communication breakdowns. Families considering this facility should weigh the mixed reports carefully: while some residents benefited from compassionate care and effective therapy, many accounts describe neglect and unsafe conditions. The review corpus suggests an urgent need for improved staffing, stronger leadership oversight, consistent clinical protocols (wound/infection management, medication administration), better hygiene practices, and transparent communication with families to address the serious concerns reported by multiple reviewers.
