The reviews of Shirkey Nursing & Rehabilitation Center present a polarized but coherent picture: many families and residents praise the staff, cleanliness, activities, and some aspects of care, while a separate set of reviews raises serious concerns about staffing levels, instances of neglect, and inconsistent nursing practices. Taken together, these comments suggest a facility that can provide good, even excellent, care under the right conditions (experienced staff, engaged activity programming, hospice support), but that also suffers from systemic staffing and operational issues that occasionally produce poor outcomes.
Care quality: Several reviewers explicitly describe high-quality care — knowledgeable caregivers, good dementia care, a trustworthy hospice integration, and residents who are happy, safe, and social. Positive anecdotes include attentive treatment of bruises, families being involved in decision-making, and some relatives choosing to stay at Shirkey rather than move to a more expensive facility. Conversely, there are multiple accounts of neglect and lapses in clinical care: missed feedings, delayed pain medication after surgery, urinals not emptied for more than 24 hours, and other incidents described as the "worst treatment." This contrast suggests that care quality is uneven and likely linked to staffing and shift-to-shift variability.
Staff and staffing patterns: Staffing is the central and most frequent concern. Reviews explicitly call out chronic understaffing with alarming examples (one review cited 2 aides for 60 patients). High staff turnover is mentioned alongside reports of both longtime, dependable employees and newer, less attentive workers. Positive reviews highlight respectful, helpful, and knowledgeable staff and note staff who create a warm environment; negative reviews describe unhelpful aides, nurses who are a "nightmare," and staff behavior that disrespects resident dignity. Reports of staff smoking on-site with CNAs and poor hand hygiene are problematic from both professionalism and infection-control standpoints. Several comments also say staff feel undervalued, which could explain turnover and morale problems that directly impact resident care.
Facilities and environment: The physical environment receives mostly positive notes: the building is described as clean, rooms are nice, patios and private rooms are appreciated, and holiday decorations and active programming create a pleasant atmosphere. At the same time, some reviewers call the facility outdated. Overall, cleanliness appears to be a strength, but aging infrastructure in places could need updating.
Dining and daily living: Dining and basic personal care are an area of mixed feedback. Positive reviews don’t emphasize dining, but negative reports highlight missed feedings and limited fallback options when kitchen services are unavailable (an example given was residents being served peanut butter and jelly when the kitchen was closed). Incontinence and toileting care problems were noted, including dignity concerns (staff staring during toileting) and unacceptable delays in emptying urinals. These are concrete, actionable issues that families should monitor.
Activities, social life, and quality of life: The Activity Director and programming receive consistent praise; holiday decorations and social opportunities help residents make friends and maintain engagement. Several reviewers specifically note that residents enjoy freedom to roam, have made friends, and that some family members "love it here," indicating strong social programming and quality-of-life features when staffing and routines support them.
Management, communication, and consistency: Several reviews call out problems with nursing staff and management consistency — including phones not being answered and family/resident wishes not being honored. The combination of communication gaps and variability in honoring wishes points to inconsistent administration or insufficient systems to ensure continuity of care. Positive reports of family involvement in decision-making indicate that when staff and management commit to engagement, it can be successful.
Patterns and overall assessment: The overall sentiment is mixed but clear: Shirkey can be an excellent choice in its region when experienced staff are present and engaged — particularly for dementia care, hospice, and activity programming. However, recurring and specific complaints about understaffing, delayed medications, lapses in hygiene and dignity, and communication failures are serious and frequent enough to be considered systemic risks. The divergence in reviews suggests that resident experience is highly dependent on staffing levels, specific shifts, and which staff members are on duty.
Recommendations for prospective families (based on review patterns): ask about current staffing ratios and turnover rates; inquire how the facility covers nights and weekends; request recent incident and staffing reports; inquire about medication administration protocols, toileting/incontinence schedules, and contingency dining plans; meet the Activity Director and observe programming; and speak with families of current residents about consistency of care. Ultimately, Shirkey appears capable of excellent, compassionate care in many respects, but prospective families should do focused due diligence and monitor care closely given the documented variability tied to staffing and operational issues.
