Overall impression: The reviews for Canterbury At Cedar Grove present a strongly mixed picture. Many families and residents praise the clinical and interpersonal strengths of the site—particularly nursing leadership and the rehabilitation team—while also reporting persistent operational, facility, and dining problems. Positive and negative experiences cluster around consistent themes: excellent therapy and caring nurses on one side, and staffing shortages, inconsistent aide performance, poor food, aging facilities, and communication failures on the other.
Care quality and nursing: Reviews repeatedly commend registered nurses, nurse managers, and several individual staff members for compassion, clinical competence, and building relationships with residents. Multiple accounts single out specific nurses and the nurse supervisor for providing peace of mind, thorough answers, and regular updates. However, there is recurring concern about aides and part-time or evening staff: aides are reported as undertrained or inattentive in some cases, with instances of delayed diaper care, poor hygiene assistance, and inattentiveness to feeding or toileting needs. A commonly reported pattern is that day-shift nursing and therapy are strong while evening and weekend staffing is thinner and less effective, producing uneven care depending on time and unit.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Physical, occupational, and speech therapies receive consistently high marks. Numerous reviewers describe measurable functional gains—residents walking again, mobility improvements, and visible progress during rehab stays. The therapy department is described as professional, motivating, and effective; many families attribute positive outcomes directly to therapists. Rehab stands out as one of the facility's strongest, most uniformly praised services.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication: A major recurring theme is understaffing and inconsistent responsiveness. Many reviewers note long wait times for assistance, call lights that are slow or nonfunctional, and unanswered phones at the nurses' station. Communication quality is uneven: some families receive proactive, regular contact from social workers, therapists, and managers; others report ignored questions, slow callbacks, or unresponsive administration. Several accounts state that meetings or advocacy by families produce improvements, suggesting responsiveness is possible but not reliably proactive.
Dining and nutrition: Opinions on food are strongly polarized. Some reviewers describe excellent, balanced meals and accommodating dietary changes; others call the food inedible, bland, or inadequate—especially following ownership or kitchen disruptions. Notable incidents include a kitchen fire that temporarily degraded meal service (cereals/sandwiches) and multiple reports that food quality declined or meal choices were limited. Several families reported weight loss tied to poor food, and there are reports of dietary noncompliance (restricted items being served). Overall, dining is a significant pain point for many reviewers even while it remains acceptable or good for others.
Facility condition and maintenance: The building is frequently described as dated, cramped, and in need of renovation. Specific maintenance problems are often cited: peeling paint, dingy windows, broken elevators, leaking faucets, loose tiles, ants, and occasional odors. Renovations are underway in places, which some families welcome but others find disruptive. Privacy concerns are also raised—shared rooms with only a curtain separating roommates and limited storage or furniture in some rooms. While several reviewers state the facility is kept clean in many units, cleanliness is highly inconsistent across floors and shifts.
Safety, incidents, and property handling: Several reviewers reported serious lapses or concerning incidents: missing medications or medical records, lost laundry or dentures, bruises or rashes on residents, and instances where families felt their loved ones were neglected. Call-button failures and slow responses increased risk in some accounts. Such reports were not universal but are numerous enough to be a persistent red flag that prospective residents and families should review closely.
Activities and social life: There are positive mentions of creative and engaging events (petting zoos, well-run programs) and a friendly recreation staff. At the same time, some reviews complain that activities are canceled, not inclusive of all residents, or not tailored to individual interests. The mix suggests that programming exists and can be good, but consistency and engagement vary by unit and staffing levels.
Administration and records: Families report mixed experiences with administration—some administrators and business managers are praised as helpful and proactive, while others are described as unresponsive. Practical administrative pain points include difficulty obtaining medical records (noted charges and delays) and poor coordination when transfers or paperwork are needed.
Notable patterns and caveats: Several patterns emerge repeatedly: (1) day-shift staff, especially therapists and some nurses, are strong and often the reason reviewers recommend the facility; (2) evenings and weekends commonly suffer from staffing shortages that materially affect care; (3) food and kitchen disruptions are a frequent source of dissatisfaction; and (4) the physical plant is aged, producing maintenance and cleanliness variability. Multiple reviewers also note that family advocacy, escalation meetings, or intervention by management frequently leads to improvements, indicating responsiveness is possible but inconsistent.
Bottom line: Canterbury At Cedar Grove presents a mixed but actionable profile. Its major strengths are rehabilitation services and many compassionate, skilled nursing staff who deliver measurable clinical improvements and strong interpersonal care. Its major weaknesses are operational: inconsistent aide performance, staffing shortages during evenings/weekends, variable cleanliness and maintenance, frequent complaints about food quality, and lapses in communication and administrative follow-through. Prospective residents and families should weigh the high-quality therapy and committed nursing staff against the facility-level and operational concerns, and they should plan for active family involvement and regular communication with management to help ensure consistent care. Visiting multiple times, meeting the therapy and nursing teams, and asking specific questions about evening/weekend staffing, call-button reliability, and meal accommodations will help set realistic expectations and reduce surprises.
