The reviews for Mountain View Health and Rehabilitation present a highly polarized picture, with strong praise from many families and direct allegations of neglect and unsafe conditions from others. A recurring positive theme is the presence of compassionate, hardworking staff and a highly regarded therapy team; numerous reviewers specifically commend nurses, CNAs, and therapists for attentive care, daily check-ins, and helping residents feel cared-for and at home. Several families note that dietary needs are accommodated and that meals can be tasty and nutritious. Multiple accounts describe specific staff members and leaders (including a head of nursing and therapy teams) as exceptional and instrumental in improving resident lives.
Counterbalancing the positive reports are multiple, detailed allegations of serious lapses in care and safety. Several reviews describe acute incidents: unplugged call buttons, long delays in toileting or bedpan assistance, patients left without contact for hours, and at least one report of a resident being transferred to a hospital in critical condition without family awareness. Falls are reported repeatedly, and reviewers allege that post-fall medical assessments were not performed promptly or at all. These accounts raise substantial safety concerns that go beyond single complaints and suggest systemic problems in timely monitoring and emergency response.
Facility cleanliness and hygiene are a major area of contention. Multiple reviewers describe filthy conditions — soiled bedspreads, dirty bedpans on the floor, unclean bathrooms and toilets, lack of soap, and general run-down building conditions. In contrast, some reviewers explicitly state that rooms and patients were kept very clean. The discrepancy suggests marked inconsistency between shifts, units, or over time, rather than uniform facility standards. Reports of personal belongings being lost, returned empty, or even burned — with families forced to pay high shipping or replacement costs — further compound concerns about operations and resident dignity.
Staffing, management, and communication emerge as central fault lines. Numerous reviews accuse the facility of understaffing — particularly on weekends — and reduced levels of care due to budget cuts. Families recount unreturned phone calls, unresponsiveness from management, and last-minute cancellations of pick-ups or admissions (including a reported refusal/readmission denial for a patient receiving chemotherapy). Some reviews allege that management has posted fake five-star staff reviews and attempt to minimize negative feedback; others say a new administrator (named Steffanie in reviews) is in place with claims of either improvement or continued problems. State ombudsman involvement and threats or pursuit of legal action are mentioned in several negative accounts, indicating that at least some complaints have escalated beyond informal family grievances.
Dining and activity programming are mixed. While some residents and families praise meals and dietary accommodation, many others report abominable food, cold meals, misrepresented menu offerings, and even allergy-safe meal errors (e.g., shellfish served despite an allergy). Activity levels and frequency of basic personal care are questioned as well — reports of showers only twice a week and reduced activities due to budget cuts appear alongside positive mentions of engaging staff and social atmosphere.
Overall sentiment is sharply divided: a significant subset of reviewers express deep appreciation for compassionate, professional caregivers and strong therapy services, while another subset cites dangerous neglect, hygiene failures, and poor management practices. The most alarming patterns are repeated safety and communication failures (falls without assessment, unplugged call buttons, delayed response, transfers without family notification) and inconsistent cleanliness. These issues suggest variability in care quality that could reflect staffing shortages, inconsistent leadership practices, or uneven adherence to clinical and operational protocols.
For prospective families or advocates evaluating Mountain View Health and Rehabilitation, the reviews recommend exercising caution and conducting thorough, targeted due diligence. Specific questions to ask and observe on a tour include: staffing ratios and weekend staffing levels; fall prevention and post-fall assessment protocols; response times to call lights and nurse calls; policies for admitting/readmitting medically complex patients (e.g., those on chemotherapy); measures for protecting personal belongings; meal preparation and allergy-safety procedures; frequency of bathing and personal hygiene care; and the facility’s complaint escalation and family communication practices. Reviewers also suggest checking recent state inspection reports and any ombudsman findings. The facility clearly has staff members and teams that families strongly value, but the documented safety and quality inconsistencies merit direct verification before placement.
