Overall sentiment across reviews for CareOne at Livingston is highly mixed, with a strong pattern of polarized experiences: many families and patients praise the facility for excellent, outcome-driven rehabilitation and compassionate, attentive daytime nursing and therapy staff, while a substantial number of complaints describe serious lapses in basic care, poor communication, and dangerous understaffing. The most consistent positive thread centers on therapy and short-term rehab outcomes. Multiple reviewers credit the PT/OT teams with enabling patients to regain mobility, including walking with a walker, and describe professional, skilled, and motivating therapists. Several accounts note intensive therapy schedules (e.g., six days a week) and constructive collaboration among therapy team members, with email communication functioning well when used. In those positive cases, supportive admissions and social work staff, personalized meal accommodations, engaging activities, and a clean, well-decorated facility complemented the clinical care and contributed to a favorable rehab experience.
However, the negative reports are frequent and detailed, and they point to recurring systemic issues. Understaffing is a pervasive complaint — reviewers describe long delays in responding to call bells (commonly reported as 10–30 minutes and sometimes much longer), inadequate night-shift coverage, and overworked aides and nurses. The difference in service quality between day and night shifts is repeatedly highlighted: many families described day staff as attentive and caring while characterizing night staff as inattentive, rude, or neglectful. Hygiene failures (residents left in soiled garments or diapers for extended periods), missed medication doses, delayed or missed wound/ostomy care, and unprocessed lab work culminating in infections (UTI, sepsis) or readmissions are cited in a number of reports. There are also several alarming allegations involving falls, medication mishaps, and safety oversights which families attribute to inattentive or undertrained staff.
Communication and management responsiveness emerge as another major theme. Numerous reviewers note difficulty reaching the facility by phone, long hold times, unanswered voicemails, and instances of being hung up on or treated rudely by reception staff. Family meetings and promised follow-ups are described as inconsistently executed. While some accounts commend directors, social workers, and particular leaders who advocate effectively for residents, other reviewers say management ignores or downplays complaints and that escalation does not reliably produce corrective action. This inconsistency contributes to the polarized perceptions: where leadership and site-level staff are engaged, outcomes and family satisfaction trend positive; where follow-up and oversight are lacking, serious quality and safety issues appear.
Sanitation and infection control receive mixed reviews — some families praise pandemic-era diligence and remark that the facility kept residents safe during COVID, while others report COVID exposure linked to staff, poor infection procedures, and general cleanliness problems (including stained bedding and dirty bathrooms). Food and dining are similarly mixed: several reviews describe delicious, personalized meals and welcoming kitchen staff, while others report frequent cold meals, missing menu items, and poor dietary management. Amenities and environment (salon, pleasant grounds, bright modern rooms) are repeatedly cited as a strength and often create a positive first impression, but multiple reviewers warn that the attractive appearance sometimes masks inconsistent or poor care behind the scenes.
The reviews also contain numerous mentions of individual staff members who made a positive difference — nurses, CNAs, therapists, and specific employees (named in some reviews) receive high praise for empathy, dedication, and clinical skill. That said, reviewers also name individual staff with unprofessional conduct. The presence of both exemplary and problematic individuals points to variability in hiring, training, and supervision practices. Several reports mention specific operational concerns — lack of weekend physician availability, name-tag-less staff, staff wearing earbuds, and inconsistent therapy caseload continuity — which families should consider when evaluating the facility.
In summary, CareOne at Livingston demonstrates clear strengths in rehabilitation expertise, certain clinical staff, facility environment, and some aspects of hospitality and family support. However, there is a significant, recurring cluster of safety- and quality-related concerns (understaffing, slow/no call response, hygiene neglect, inconsistent infection control, communication failures, and uneven management follow-through). The pattern is one of high variability: excellent outcomes and compassionate care for some residents versus neglectful or unsafe experiences for others. Prospective residents and families should seek detailed, specific assurances during tours and admissions: inquire about staffing levels by shift, average call-bell response times, night-shift supervision, infection-control processes, therapy scheduling and coordination, medication administration protocols, complaint escalation pathways, and opportunities to meet therapy and nursing leaders. Observing the facility during both daytime and evening hours and asking for references from recent families with similar clinical needs may help clarify whether the strengths reported by many will apply to a particular patient’s expected stay.
