Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with a stark split between strongly positive experiences and serious negative allegations. On the positive side, multiple reviewers consistently praise the rehabilitation services (PT/OT), noting effective therapy, individualized attention from therapists, and successful outcomes that allowed patients to return home sooner than expected. Several reviewers highlight compassionate, kind, and hardworking staff who know residents’ names, treat residents like family members, and maintain clean, private rooms and pleasant common spaces such as courtyards and gardens. Some parts of the facility are described as remodeled, very clean, and meticulously maintained, and there are repeated mentions of a few standout clinicians and therapists as well as an excellent physician and responsive therapy staff. New management and added staff are reported by some reviewers and tied to improvements in service and inspections.
However, the negative reports are numerous and severe in scope. A substantial number of reviews allege neglectful care, poor hygiene, and safety failures — including filthy bedding and clothing, urine-soaked rooms, delayed or non-functioning equipment (call lights, oxygen), medication mismanagement, missing medications, and missing personal belongings. There are multiple serious clinical allegations: sacral sores, severe skin loss, multiple UTIs, a burst Foley bag, abnormal urine color, drainage collecting on the body, and delays in transfers that reportedly risked sepsis or DVT. Some reviewers describe residents left in wet pants for extended periods, skipped or inaccessible meals, and staff distracted or unavailable when needed. These accounts raise major concerns about infection control, wound care, continence care, and basic daily care standards for vulnerable residents.
Communication and management are frequent areas of complaint. Many reviewers report rude, defensive, or dismissive responses from staff and administration; accusations of deceitful or dishonest behavior; poor follow-through on complaints; refusal to provide staff names or necessary regulatory information; and instances of calls being hung up on. Several families describe being ignored when escalating concerns, delayed paperwork or refund processing, and confrontational interactions with leadership. There are also reports of security lapses after a death, privacy/HIPAA issues (including police involvement over photos), and unsafe discharge/eviction practices. At least a few reviewers describe staff turnover or chronic understaffing, which correlates with other reported delays (e.g., waiting hours for PT, late meds, slow call light response). These systemic concerns suggest inconsistent leadership, training gaps, and variability in standards across shifts and teams.
Facility condition feedback is contradictory: some reviewers praise spotless rooms, fresh smells, freshly remodeled wings, and well-kept grounds, while others describe outdated furniture, dark dirty walls, filthy windows, sticky floors, stagnant water smells, and pervasive urine or feces odors. This inconsistency suggests variability across units, floors, or periods of staffing/management. Dining also receives mixed feedback — a number of reviewers loved the cafeteria food and found portions adequate, while others reported dried-up bread, small portions, cold meals, and residents skipped meals. Activities are noted as available in some comments (even twice daily in one report), but other reviewers found little engagement or saw staff too busy to facilitate activities.
A recurring pattern is the existence of both very positive and very negative experiences, often within the same facility. Several reviews highlight exceptional, compassionate employees — particularly in therapy and nursing — who deliver high-quality, individualized care. At the same time, other reviews detail severe lapses in basic caregiving, safety, and ethical conduct. This suggests that care quality may be highly dependent on specific staff members, shifts, or management regimes. Some reviewers specifically mention improvements under new management, indicating potential positive change, while others still describe ongoing dangerous conditions. Families therefore face significant uncertainty: experiences can range from “top notch” care to alleged neglect and harm.
In summary, Jefferson Health Care appears to offer excellent rehabilitation services and has many staff members who are compassionate and effective, and several aspects of the facility and programming are praised. However, there are numerous, serious and specific allegations of neglect, hygiene failures, medication and equipment problems, poor communication, theft, and management issues that create safety and trust concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the variability reported in these reviews, verify current staffing and inspection records, ask detailed questions about wound care, infection control, medication administration, call light response times, and incident reporting, and seek references from recent families. If possible, an in-person tour of the exact unit the resident would occupy, meetings with therapy staff and nursing leadership, and review of recent state inspection reports are advisable before making placement decisions.
