Overall impression: Reviews of Complete Care at Madison are highly polarized, with a large volume of reports describing both deeply positive personal experiences and serious allegations of neglect and unsafe care. The dominant recurring theme across many reviews is chronic understaffing and inconsistent staffing quality. That underlying staffing problem appears to be a major driver of both positive and negative outcomes: where experienced, stable caregivers are present families report compassionate, attentive care and rehabilitative successes; where staffing is thin or transient, families report delayed responses, poor hygiene, and severe medical complications.
Care quality and safety: Multiple reviews describe serious clinical failures including medication administration problems, residents being left in soiled diapers or soaked beds for extended periods, development of bedsores, severe urinary tract infections, sepsis, and delayed hospital transfers. Several reviewers said their loved ones required readmission to hospital within days, and some urged regulatory investigation. Conversely, many other reviewers describe life-saving interventions, vigilant nurses, and high-quality rehab outcomes. This indicates significant inconsistency in clinical care — in some units or shifts care is timely and effective, while in others it is inadequate and potentially dangerous.
Staff and interpersonal interactions: Reviews frequently praise individual caregivers and nurses by name for compassion, professionalism, and going above and beyond. Administrative and front-desk staff receive positive mentions in many reports for communication and coordination. However, this is counterbalanced by numerous complaints about rude, uncaring, or unprofessional staff and aides, as well as high turnover, canceled shifts, and reliance on agency staff. Several reviews single out management and ownership as problematic — reporting evasive directors of nursing, last-minute shift cancellations by HR/owners, and a general impression of residents being treated as "just another number." This mixed picture suggests the facility has valued, excellent employees but uneven leadership and retention problems that undermine consistent performance.
Facilities and cleanliness: Comments on the physical plant are mixed. Some families describe an attractive, welcoming facility with a helpful garden/outdoor area and sections that are clean and comfortable. Other reviews report a rundown environment in certain wings, problems with odors (urine smell), mold/mildew allegations, dirty bathrooms, and clogged or non-working showers. Many reviewers note ongoing renovations and cosmetic improvements, which some say are improving conditions slowly. The coexistence of both "well-kept" and "unsanitary" descriptions suggests variability between units or periods and that housekeeping and maintenance may be affected by staffing and management decisions.
Dining, therapy and activities: Opinions vary widely. Numerous reviews criticize poor food quality, missing items from trays, and inadequate nutrition — while other families praise the kitchen staff and say residents loved the food. The therapy/rehab department is similarly inconsistent in reviews: several families report excellent, rehab-focused care producing mobility gains, while others say physical therapy was minimal or too demanding. On-site activities such as arts & crafts, puzzles, and TV are available and appreciated by some reviewers, but complaints exist about insufficient programming in other comments. Overall, therapeutic and social care offerings exist but are uneven in quality and frequency.
Management, transparency and regulatory concerns: Several reviewers allege serious administrative issues including fraudulent billing/Medicare fraud, and some explicitly call for state investigations or closure. Others report helpful, communicative administration and appreciative pandemic-era updates. There are repeated complaints about poor communication regarding medical records, transfers, and hospital transport. Reported incidents of staff misconduct (smoking on-site, alleged theft of flowers), supply shortages (gowns), and cancelled shifts indicate systemic operational issues. The contrast between families who experienced clear, proactive communication and those who felt ignored points again to inconsistent management performance across time or units.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews indicate two strong realities simultaneously: (1) the facility employs many compassionate, skilled caregivers and clinicians who deliver excellent, personalized care and achieve positive rehab outcomes; and (2) there are recurring systemic problems — notably understaffing, inconsistent leadership, hygiene lapses, and serious safety incidents — that have led some families to describe neglect, hospitalization, or worse. These problems are serious enough in multiple reports that reviewers have filed formal complaints and requested state-level scrutiny.
Given the variability in experiences, prospective families should treat Complete Care at Madison as a facility with the potential for very good, person-centered care when staffing and leadership are functioning well, but also with documented risk areas tied to staffing levels, management practices, and unit-level conditions. Anyone considering placement should conduct an in-person tour of the specific unit, ask for staffing ratios by shift, request recent state inspection reports and incident histories, verify how call bells and hospital transfers are handled, and seek direct references from current families in the same unit. The most reliable way to evaluate this facility is unit- and shift-specific: positive reviews often reference particular staff members and teams — those are the pockets of strength — while many negative reviews point to systemic failures that need to be verified and monitored before making placement decisions.
