The reviews for Complete Care at Regent are highly polarized, producing a mixed but urgent picture. Many reviewers highlight exemplary aspects of the facility: a strong therapy program (PT/OT) that delivers good rehab outcomes, numerous named nurses and aides praised for compassion and skill, a friendly and efficient front desk, and well-designed communal spaces that promote socialization. Several families and long-term residents describe a warm, family-like atmosphere, personalized care plans, clean common areas, and positive interactions with social workers and coordinators. In short stays for rehabilitation, multiple accounts indicate attentive care, clear treatment communication, and successful recoveries.
Counterbalancing these positive reports is a consistent and serious cluster of negative themes. Understaffing is one of the most frequently cited problems — especially nights and weekends — and is linked to long call-bell response times (instances of 30+ minute waits are described), residents being left in soiled linens for extended periods, delayed medication administration, and missed basic care tasks. Several reviews document neglect that led to bedsores, urinary tract infections, untreated wounds, and emergency room transfers. There are also reports of medication errors including a documented insulin overdose that resulted in a critical event. These safety-related complaints are acute and repeated enough to indicate systemic risk rather than isolated incidents.
Cleanliness and laundry management are addressed in conflicting ways: while many reviewers praise the housekeeping and odor-free common areas, a substantial number report dirty rooms, urine smells, moth-eaten sheets, wet linens left on beds, lost laundry, and poor infection-control practices. This suggests inconsistency in environmental services across units, shifts, or patient cohorts. Food and dining also elicit mixed feedback — some find meals appetizing and well-timed with appropriate accommodations, while others report small portions, unappetizing food, and improper handling.
Staff quality appears bimodal. Numerous reviewers single out specific caregivers, nurses, therapists, and administrative staff by name (e.g., Unice, Leatha, Michelle, Anna, Iris, Maribel, Josette, Gabby, Luz, and others) as compassionate, professional, and instrumental in positive experiences. At the same time, there are frequent reports of rude, inattentive, or unprofessional aides—some observed using personal phones, not wearing masks, or speaking about patients — and accounts of agency or inexperienced staff who are not comfortable with basic geriatric care tasks. This variation suggests uneven hiring, training, or retention practices that create pockets of excellence alongside areas of concern.
Communication and leadership are recurring concerns. Families report difficulty reaching social workers, long phone wait times, conflicting clinical information (for example on weight-bearing instructions), and a perceived lack of managerial accountability when problems arise. Multiple reviews call out management for being slow to act or dismissive of complaints, and some reviewers allege retaliation after raising issues. Yet other reviews praise administration and the director of nursing, pointing to competent leadership in certain interactions. The coexistence of both viewpoints implies inconsistent managerial responses dependent on who is contacted and when.
Serious safety allegations — abuse, bruises, unattended patients in hallways, and accounts of severe neglect leading to death in some cases — appear among the most alarming feedback. These reports, combined with documented clinical errors and delayed response times, warrant immediate attention from facility leadership and external oversight. However, it is important to note that many families explicitly attribute positive outcomes to close family involvement; several negative experiences were mitigated only when family members visited frequently and intervened.
Overall, Complete Care at Regent demonstrates strengths in rehabilitation services, pockets of highly compassionate and skilled staff, and an environment that can be pleasant and well-run for many residents. Simultaneously, persistent patterns — understaffing, inconsistent caregiver competence, delayed responses to call bells, wound-care and medication safety issues, cleanliness lapses in some units, and problematic communication/management accountability — produce a significant number of negative and potentially dangerous experiences. The reviews suggest urgent priorities: stabilize staffing levels (especially nights/weekends), standardize training and supervision of aides and agency staff, implement stricter medication and wound-care protocols with transparent incident reporting, audit laundry/housekeeping and infection control practices, and improve family communication and complaint handling with an actionable improvement plan. Addressing these areas could help shift the facility toward the positive experiences many families have reported, and reduce the serious safety and quality concerns raised by other reviewers.
