Overall impression: The reviews for The Ivy at Great Falls are highly polarized, with a substantial number of reviewers praising the rehab/skilled nursing services and individual staff members, while others report serious, recurring problems—particularly in long-term memory care areas. Many families and former residents describe excellent short-term rehabilitation outcomes, strong therapy services, attentive nurses and physical therapists, and a seamless admissions experience. Conversely, other reviewers describe chronic understaffing, hygiene neglect, missing personal items, and safety concerns. The net sentiment therefore depends heavily on which unit, shift, and staff members a resident encounters.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Clinical care reports are mixed but notable for patterns. Several reviewers describe exceptional skilled nursing and rehabilitation care—thorough therapy, smooth recoveries, and staff who seem to protect residents' rights. At the same time, multiple reviewers raise alarms about inadequate basic caregiving in certain units: not bathing residents, irregular shaving, slow or missed pain medications, and delayed catheterization leading to infections. Falls and bladder infections are specifically mentioned as safety outcomes tied to staffing and responsiveness issues. The result is an inconsistent standard of care where rehab/skilled stays are often positive but long-term and memory care appear more vulnerable to neglect and decline in several accounts.
Staffing, responsiveness, and safety: Understaffing is one of the most consistent negative themes. Reviewers report long waits for call lights to be answered, claims of only one nurse per floor, and extremely high CNA-to-resident ratios in some comments. These staffing shortages are linked in reviews to delayed clinical interventions (e.g., catheterization), missed hygiene care, and potential safety events (falls, infections). Some families explicitly characterize staff as overworked and under-appreciated but still caring; others describe staff as poorly trained or inattentive. There are also positive counterexamples where nurses, CNAs, and therapists are described as kind, attentive, and effective—highlighting serious variability by shift and unit.
Facilities, rooms, and supplies: The state of the physical plant and in-room amenities is described variably. Several reviewers praise clean, spacious rooms and an improved building appearance in parts of the facility, especially rehab units. Other reviews characterize rooms as dark, lonely, or missing televisions, and complain about run-down conditions and minimal supplies. There are repeated reports of non-working phones, clocks, or other room readiness issues. The divergence in facility condition between units contributes to the broader pattern of uneven resident experience.
Activities, therapy, and social engagement: A clear strength in many reviews is the activity and therapy programming. Multiple reviewers say residents are more engaged, encouraged to participate, and enjoy family-involved activities. Therapy staff frequently receive praise (“therapy department rocks”) for facilitating good recoveries and supporting residents’ functional gains. Social work is also singled out in positive accounts for being proactive and helpful with Medicare and discharge coordination.
Communication and management: Communication and management receive mixed assessments. Several families report transparent, frequent updates and an admissions director who makes the process smooth. Others report poor communication, long hold times, calls unanswered or hung up, and difficulty getting reliable information—comments that suggest administrative inconsistency. Specific staff members are praised by name (e.g., Erin, Tiana, Kim), which indicates pockets of strong leadership and caregiving amid broader management concerns. Reviewers also raise issues with scheduling, contract staff reliability, and perceived indifference by some managers.
Patterns and notable contradictions: The strongest pattern is the split between highly positive experiences—generally associated with short-term rehab and specific staff members—and severely negative experiences that center on chronic understaffing, hygiene neglect, missing belongings, and poor management, often described in the context of long-term or memory care. Many families explicitly say they would recommend Ivy for rehab/skilled nursing, while others explicitly say they would not send loved ones there for long-term or memory care. The recurring reports of missing personal items, removed televisions, and dark rooms compound concerns about dignity and quality of life for long-stay residents.
Final assessment: If a family is considering The Ivy at Great Falls, the reviews suggest this facility can deliver strong short-term rehabilitation and has many compassionate, skilled individuals on staff. However, the variability is substantial—staffing shortages, inconsistent management, and reports of neglect in certain units are significant red flags. Prospective families should (a) ask specific, current questions about staffing ratios on the unit and shifts that will cover their loved one, (b) request to visit the specific unit and room at multiple times of day (unannounced visits were revealing for some reviewers), (c) meet therapy and nursing staff they’ll interact with, and (d) inquire about policies for personal belongings, call-response times, and infection prevention. These steps can help determine whether a given unit and team at Ivy align with an individual resident’s needs.
