Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed but centers strongly on the staff: many reviewers describe Pearl River County Hospital & Nursing Home as a small, community-focused facility with a large proportion of compassionate, skilled, and committed clinicians who provide rapid, effective emergency care and thoughtful follow-up. Numerous positive comments highlight nurse practitioners and physicians by name, praise the nursing and respiratory teams, and emphasize quick triage, gentle IV/ blood draws, clear explanation of test results, and successful coordination of transfers when higher-level care is required. Several reviewers explicitly call the swing‑bed and rehab services top‑notch, note good therapy and dining experiences, and report lifesaving interventions and timely medication administration. The facility’s proximity, VA partnerships, and affordable prescriptions are also frequently appreciated, reinforcing its value as a local resource.
Despite the many favorable clinical reports, a significant and recurring set of concerns relates to facility cleanliness, privacy, and consistency of care. Multiple reviewers describe poor housekeeping in the skilled nursing areas—dirty floors, toenail clippings, unwashed clothes, and even pest sightings in public spaces. Privacy lapses (for example, patients exposed while a door is left open near waiting areas) and an overall “sad” or dated appearance due to incomplete remodeling are raised repeatedly. These environmental and privacy issues are not isolated: several accounts tie them to broader safety worries, including reported infections, dehydration, and at least one incident a reviewer characterizes as near-fatal that prompted calls to close the facility. Together these items suggest shortcomings in infection control, housekeeping protocols, and facility maintenance that should be prioritized.
A major theme is inconsistency in staff performance and clinical thoroughness. While many reviews heap praise on individual clinicians (NP Tony May, Jason, Kayla, and others receive repeated positive mentions), others recount episodes of rude or unprofessional behavior, dismissive bedside manner, repeated needle sticks, or staff who said troubling things (e.g., telling a patient to never return). There are multiple reports of gaps in clinical assessment: missed diagnostic opportunities (a strep infection not detected during an ER visit but diagnosed hours later elsewhere), tetanus vaccination not given when expected, incomplete lab workups, and situations where clinicians did not order imaging or follow‑ups that families expected. Some patients experienced medication or documentation errors (meds not filed/administered), delays necessitating return visits, and inconsistent pain management. Several reviews also mention perceptions of unnecessary imaging or testing tied to billing and insurance upsell, raising concerns about transparency of care decisions and financial practices.
Operational limitations and service scope are frequently noted. As a smaller rural facility the hospital lacks some onsite capabilities (ultrasound availability, certain specialist consults such as orthopedics or neurology), which leads to transfers to larger centers and occasional frustration when patients and families feel the local team did not fully rule out conditions before transfer. Wait times are variable: many describe almost immediate attention, while others experienced very long waits even when the ED appeared not busy. Diagnostic turnaround delays (long waits for test results during outbreaks) and episodes of inattentive staff behavior (nurses on phones, slow responses) are also described. Billing surprises and extra charges are mentioned by several reviewers, contributing to distrust among some patients.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility that is a valued community asset because of numerous highly competent and compassionate clinicians and strong emergency, respiratory, and rehabilitation care in many encounters. However, significant and recurring problems—facility cleanliness and housekeeping failures, privacy breaches, inconsistent staff attitudes and clinical thoroughness, care‑coordination and medication errors, and some operational limits—diminish trust for a subset of patients and families. To strengthen reputation and patient safety, focused improvements are indicated: consistent staffing levels and training to reduce variability in care and bedside manner; rigorous housekeeping, infection control, and pest management; clearer clinical protocols to ensure necessary tests and vaccinations are completed; improved documentation and medication administration processes; and transparent billing practices. Addressing these areas while maintaining the many strengths of the clinical team would likely convert more of the positive but cautious reviewers into unequivocal supporters.
