Overall sentiment across the reviews of Rosewood Health and Rehab is highly mixed and polarized, with a substantial number of detailed, serious negative reports coexisting alongside numerous strongly positive accounts. The most common positive themes are staff members who are compassionate, responsive and experienced, a handful of standout caregivers (CNAs named directly), helpful social work/coordination in some cases, effective rehabilitation outcomes for certain patients, engaging activities, and improvements attributed to new or knowledgeable administration. Conversely, many reviewers report systemic problems: neglectful care, poor hygiene, unsafe incidents, theft, infestation, and pervasive cleanliness and staffing shortfalls.
Care quality shows the widest range of experience. Several reviewers praise nurses, CNAs and therapy teams for hands-on care, rehabilitation progress, and attention to residents’ needs. For these families the facility provided stable, structured environments and measurable improvements in behavior and mobility. However, an equally strong set of reviews describes neglect: missed wound care, prolonged waits for assistance (one reviewer cited 30-minute nurse waits), minimal bathing (only two showers in 20 days), residents left in soiled bedding, and examples of spoiled food left in rooms. There are specific, serious allegations such as residents being left crying in restrooms, a patient who stopped walking after care interruptions, and reported assaults that reviewers say went ignored. Such reports point to inconsistent clinical oversight and variability in day-to-day caregiving.
Staffing and staff behavior are central themes. Many reviewers praise individual staff members and emphasize teamwork, dedication, and going above and beyond. Named staff and CNAs receive strong appreciation. At the same time, multiple reports highlight understaffing, especially on weekends or when agency staff fill shifts; these periods are associated with missed medications, meals, delayed ADL assistance, and poor supervision. Several reviewers note rude or unprofessional behavior (cursing, snapping), poor responsiveness (phones unanswered, administration not returning calls), and failures in basic communication. The pattern suggests that quality often depends heavily on which staff are on shift and the strength of leadership present that day.
Facility condition and cleanliness emerge as consistent concerns for a significant subset of reviewers. Complaints include worn and dirty upholstered furniture, poorly lit and dingy common areas, floors described as filthy or unmopped for weeks, bed bugs, and other sanitation issues. Yet other reviewers describe pleasant courtyards and a generally comfortable environment. This disparity indicates variability by building area, room, or time period; some reviewers explicitly describe long-term deterioration over a decade while others note recent improvements under new management.
Dining, amenities and personal property issues are also recurrent. Several families report poor food quality, spoiled items left in rooms, lost or stolen personal belongings, and a hairdresser paid in advance who did not provide service or refund — with administration unresponsive. Conversely, some reviewers compliment the kitchen staff and amenities like transportation and social activities. These mixed reports again point to uneven execution: some departments perform reliably while others have lapses that materially affect residents’ wellbeing.
Management and administration receive mixed reviews as well. A number of reviewers credit a knowledgeable management team and cite positive leadership changes and improvements under new administration. Others, however, describe administrators who do not respond to complaints, fail to refund prepaid services, and lack transparency. Operational problems such as ineffective caseworkers, rehab interruptions due to insurance lapses, and poor phone responsiveness were specifically called out by reviewers as creating harmful care discontinuities.
Notable patterns and red flags: (1) High variability — experiences range from highly positive to severely negative, often tied to specific staff members, shifts (weekend/agency), or recent administrative changes. (2) Safety and neglect concerns — multiple reviewers allege prolonged waiting for assistance, hygiene neglect, wound-care failures, and ignored incidents; these are serious issues that warrant scrutiny. (3) Cleanliness and pest/theft reports — repeated mentions of filthy floors, bed bugs and stolen items are material quality-of-care indicators. (4) Communication and responsiveness — unanswered phones, unresponsive administration and delayed care coordination (including insurance-related rehab interruptions) are frequent.
In summary, Rosewood Health and Rehab elicits sharply divergent opinions. For some families it provides compassionate staff, effective therapy, engaging activities and an environment where residents improve and feel cared for. For others it suffers from systemic problems including neglect, understaffing, poor sanitation, inconsistent leadership responsiveness, and safety incidents. Because of this variability, prospective residents and families should perform careful, specific due diligence: schedule multiple visits at different times/shifts, ask for staffing ratios and turnover data, review recent inspection and complaint records, meet the nurses and therapy staff who would be responsible, inquire about wound-care protocols and infection control, verify medication and meal delivery procedures, and check how the facility handles incident reporting and refunds. These steps can help determine whether the facility’s strengths apply to a particular resident’s needs or whether the risks highlighted by other reviewers are likely to affect care.
