Overall sentiment in the reviews for Sherbrooke Village Living Center is strongly mixed and highly polarized. Many reviewers praise the physical campus, therapy capabilities and individual staff members; at the same time a substantial portion of reviews report serious operational and safety issues. The facility presents as clean, bright and well‑maintained with updated décor, roomy rooms, attractive grounds and on‑site amenities (chapel, gym, therapy rooms). For short‑term rehabilitation many families report outstanding PT/OT/speech services, excellent therapy outcomes, a well‑equipped therapy department and compassionate therapists who produce measurable recovery. Several reviewers explicitly credit Sherbrooke’s rehab team with meaningful post‑op or stroke recovery, and multiple families describe peace of mind because of positive therapy experiences and strong housekeeping/maintenance.
However, those positive impressions are frequently undermined by recurring complaints about staffing, communication and clinical care. A dominant theme is chronic understaffing and high turnover — reviewers say this results in slow call‑light responses, missed showers, delayed toileting and periods when residents are left unattended. Staffing problems are tied to variable nursing quality: while some nurses and CNAs are praised as caring and professional, many others are described as rude, uncaring, inattentive or undertrained. Medication management problems are a serious and repeated concern: families report wrong medications, missed or delayed doses (including PRN pain meds), and medications administered inconsistently across shifts. Several reviews describe delayed or ignored vital signs, oxygen monitoring and wound care, sometimes culminating in hospital transfers, infections, sepsis or worse.
Safety and neglect allegations recur across reviews and range from poor hygiene and missed assistance to more alarming incidents that reviewers classify as abuse or gross neglect (bruises, ripped toenail, injuries from mishandling, fatal falls and claims of death related to untreated infections). These reports are coupled with accounts of poor incident follow‑up, unhelpful management responses and families feeling compelled to pursue complaints or legal action. Administratively, problems such as billing errors, lost clothing and unresponsive receptionists amplify family frustration. Several reviews indicate new ownership and staffing cuts (MGM Healthcare), and others suggest the first months under new management produced noticeable declines in responsiveness and staffing levels.
Dining, activities and daily life also generate mixed feedback. Many residents and visitors enjoy the dining options and customization of meals, and some reviewers say food is appealing; conversely, a substantial number recount cold food, small portions, frequent item unavailability and missed meal assistance. Activities are praised when the activity staff is fully present and engaged, but several accounts describe a TV‑centered routine with limited programming, especially on weekends and holidays. The layout of the facility draws comment: the campus and grounds are attractive, but some describe confusing floor plans and operational flows that feel institutional or difficult to navigate.
Management and communication are recurring fault lines. Positive accounts emphasize caring, communicative staff and a welcoming admissions/tour experience, while negative accounts say administration can be dismissive, fail to respond to complaints, and inadequately address safety concerns. Reviews highlight notable individual staff who ‘go above and beyond,’ but families also report inconsistent leadership, slow investigations of incidents, and poor follow‑through after adverse events. There are also operational quirks mentioned in multiple reviews: month‑to‑month assisted living options and some financial qualification requirements (e.g., multi‑year documentation, VA benefit suggestions), occasional theft concerns, and mixed experiences with discharge policy and insurance coverage.
Bottom line: Sherbrooke Village shows strong strengths — an attractive campus, excellent short‑term rehab and therapy capabilities, and many individual employees who are caring and skilled. Those strengths coexist with significant and recurrent weaknesses: inconsistent nursing care, understaffing, delayed or missing clinical care (including medication and wound care), communication failures, and safety/neglect allegations that cannot be ignored. These patterns suggest Sherbrooke may be a reasonable choice for short, therapy‑focused stays when the well‑rated rehab staff is present and staffing levels are adequate, but families considering long‑term skilled nursing or vulnerable loved ones should exercise caution. If considering Sherbrooke, ask specific questions on tour about current nurse‑to‑resident ratios, on‑unit RN coverage (including nights and weekends), call‑light response time guarantees, wound‑care protocols, medication administration auditing, staffing turnover rates and how management responds to incidents. Meet the therapy team, inspect recent inspection/complaint resolutions, and consider arranging frequent family oversight after admission — the difference between a positive and a dangerous experience at this facility appears to depend heavily on staffing stability and which caregivers are on duty.
