The review corpus for Mountainside Skilled Nursing and Rehab is strongly polarized, with two clear and recurring themes: an outstanding rehabilitation/therapy experience for many short-term patients, and significant, sometimes severe, operational and quality-of-care problems affecting long-term and vulnerable residents. A large number of reviewers praise the physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) teams, naming clinical leaders (for example, Diana Chen-Wong/Diana Wong and other therapists) and crediting the rehab program with substantial functional gains — improved walking, speech recovery, wound healing, and successful discharges home. Many families singled out individual nurses, CNAs, social workers, and front-desk/housekeeping staff as compassionate, attentive, and professional; positive staff names recur throughout reviews. The activities program is frequently mentioned as engaging and varied, and several reviewers applauded good communication, appointment/transport coordination, and language or veteran-specific supports. In these positive accounts the facility can feel clean, home-like, and highly effective for post-acute rehabilitation needs.
Counterbalancing those positive reports are widespread and serious complaints about nursing care consistency, staffing, safety, and basic living conditions. A major, recurring issue is inconsistent staffing quality: reviewers describe some shifts or units where nurses and aides are caring and responsive, and others where call lights are ignored, assistance for bathing/toileting is delayed, and basic supervision is lacking. Many reports explicitly tie poor outcomes to understaffing and overworked employees, noting that a handful of committed staff "try their best" but are overwhelmed. Several reviewers described urgent safety events — missed ambulance calls, delayed escalation of medical concerns, falls, alarm bracelets being bypassed, and in extreme cases alleged physical abuse or assault — that led to hospital transfers or near-death situations. These accounts raise clear red flags about supervision, escalation protocols, and resident safety systems.
Facility condition and sanitation are another area of contradiction. Numerous reviewers report a clean, well-maintained environment with praise for housekeeping and a non-institutional feel; an almost equal number report peeling wallpaper, missing ceiling tiles, trash in hallways, urine odors, filthy rooms, unsafe drinking water (some had to bring ice and coolers), and other signs of disrepair. This split suggests variable conditions across units or over time. Food service is similarly polarized — some describe restaurant-quality meals and excellent cooks, while many others call the food barely edible (raw/frozen items, soggy breakfasts, substitutions that led to weight loss). These wide variations suggest inconsistent food preparation and meal delivery practices.
Medication management and clinical consistency produce repeated concerns. Several reviews cite medication errors, wrong eye drops, failure to discontinue meds when indicated, IV or infusion issues, nighttime beeping and alarm problems, and delayed medication administration. Families also reported poor handling of wound care in some cases, while others praise specific wound-care nurses for excellent outcomes. This unevenness points to variability in clinical competence or oversight between staff members and shifts.
Administration and leadership receive both strong praise and sharp criticism. Multiple reviewers credit unit managers, directors of nursing, and social workers (names noted repeatedly) for going above and beyond, communicating well with families, coordinating aftercare, and resolving problems. Conversely, other reviewers describe unresponsive or defensive administration, reports ignored, retaliation, predatory billing practices, pressure about signing over benefits, and an overall lack of accountability. This divergence suggests that experiences depend heavily on which managers or teams are involved and that systemic administrative issues may exist in some areas.
A clear pattern emerges around patient type and length of stay: short-term, rehab-focused residents who can advocate for themselves generally report the best experiences and outcomes. Many such residents benefited from the strong PT/OT program and supportive rehab staff. In contrast, long-term residents, particularly those with dementia or severe mobility/communication limitations, are disproportionately described as having negative experiences: missed care, inadequate supervision, poor hygiene, and safety risks. Several reviewers explicitly advise against sending loved ones with dementia to this facility.
Finally, there are reports of troubling worst-case scenarios — alleged elder abuse, failure to call 911, attempted involuntary commitments, and financial predation — that, while less frequent, are serious and merit careful consideration. Given the mixture of exemplary individual staff and recurring operational problems, families and referral sources should take a cautious, investigative approach: request unit-level staffing ratios, ask about call-light response protocols and emergency escalation, confirm dementia-care programming and staffing, inspect resident rooms and diet/food service, review medication administration and wound-care procedures, and meet with the social work and nursing leadership who will oversee the loved one’s care. In summary, Mountainside appears able to deliver outstanding post-acute rehabilitation and compassionate care from committed staff, but the facility also demonstrates inconsistent nursing and operational performance with consequential safety, sanitation, and food-quality concerns — particularly for long-term and cognitively impaired residents.
