The reviews of Leo H. Fieser Nursing Center present a mixed but starkly polarized picture. A number of reviewers praise the facility for being clean, quiet, and free of unpleasant odors; several highlight the affordability of private rooms and note that residents receive regular personal care such as clean clothing and grooming. Dining gets positive mention as well: reviewers describe meals as home-cooked. Activities appear robust and varied, with card games, bingo, singing accompanied by an organist, and planned events such as a fashion show. Many comments convey gratitude and relief that loved ones are calmer and well looked after, and some reviewers use strong positive language to describe staff work ethic ("awesome," "great work," "blessed"). Overall, these accounts describe a facility that in many cases provides a comfortable, home-like environment with engaged staff and meaningful programming for residents.
Contrasting sharply with the generally positive remarks are extremely serious allegations from one or more reviewers describing medical neglect and harmful mismanagement. These accusations include refusal to transfer a resident to a hospital, removal of a wheelchair, and situations in which a resident allegedly went days without food or drink. The same account reports misdiagnosis or denial of injuries that were later determined to be two broken knees. Such claims, if accurate, represent severe lapses in clinical judgment, monitoring, and resident safety, and at least one reviewer referenced a possible lawsuit. These are high-severity issues that warrant direct confirmation with the facility and review of incident and medical records.
Staff-related commentary is inconsistent across reviews. Several reviewers praise caregivers as friendly, attentive, and responsible — noting that residents are clean, calmer, and well cared for. Others characterize staff as "terrible," alleging they ignored medical needs. This divergence suggests uneven performance or isolated but significant incidents rather than uniformly excellent or uniformly poor staffing. The presence of both strong praise and serious complaint calls attention to variability in care quality, communication, or oversight across shifts, units, or staff members.
Facility operations and safety procedures show both strengths and weaknesses in the reviews. On the positive side, cleanliness and a pleasant environment are repeatedly noted, and activities programming appears active and appreciated. On the concerning side, reviewers report inadequate visitor screening (no name checks), which raises security and infection-control questions. The most severe operational concerns are the reports about refusal of hospital transfer and prolonged deprivation of basic needs, conditions that indicate potential systemic failures in emergency response protocols or in the escalation of care.
Taken together, the reviews suggest that Leo H. Fieser Nursing Center can offer a well-kept, activity-rich, and compassionate environment for many residents, with affordable private rooms and home-style dining that families appreciate. However, the presence of very serious allegations of neglect and medical mismanagement — including a reported failure to send a resident to the hospital and later-discovered broken knees — significantly affects the overall assessment. The mixed nature of feedback points to variability in staff performance and procedural consistency.
If evaluating the facility in person or advising a family member, pay close attention to clinical policies and safeguards: ask about protocols for hospital transfer and emergency care, how injuries and incidents are documented and escalated, staffing ratios and training, visitor screening procedures, and whether the facility has had formal complaints or investigations. Given the severity of the negative allegations in the reviews, prospective residents and families should seek clarification from management and request written policies or quality-reporting information before making placement decisions.
