Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: many families report exceptional, compassionate care and strong therapy outcomes, while a substantial number describe serious quality and safety concerns. The facility receives repeated praise for individual caregivers and specific therapy staff who deliver excellent, family-like care and enable meaningful rehabilitation progress. Multiple reviewers credited named staff—most notably Millie and several nurses and therapists—with providing patient-centered, respectful, and effective care. Admissions and intake are often described as attentive and reassuring, and some families highlight a welcoming, cozy environment with low staff turnover and an engaged director or new ownership driving improvements.
Care quality and therapy services represent one of the clearest strengths. Numerous reviewers report that physical and occupational therapy teams are patient, effective, and instrumental in recovery; families frequently note measurable functional gains and strong nursing support that facilitates successful rehab stays. Several accounts also indicate the facility can manage complex needs such as dialysis, and social work involvement is praised when staff focus on the patient’s preferences and individualized plans. These positive accounts are often emphatic—families saying staff treated residents "like family," went "above and beyond," and restored strength and independence.
At the same time, there is a recurring and serious set of complaints that create safety and quality red flags. Many reviews describe inconsistent staffing levels, especially on night/third shifts, with allegations of staff sleeping on duty, leaving premises, or being otherwise unavailable. Reports of neglect include residents left soaking wet, soiled linens, missed diaper changes, and unexplained weight loss or cognitive decline. Clinical concerns include wound care problems and bedsores, medication mistakes, and at least one report of an attending physician refusing outside consultations. These types of reports, if accurate, indicate sporadic but consequential lapses in basic care and clinical oversight.
Cleanliness and infection control are another major area of discrepancy. While some families describe a very clean, well-maintained facility, others report severe hygiene problems: bed bugs, scabies exposure risk, mold on bread, flies in vegetables, hair in food, and dirty sheets and trash in rooms. Such reports raise concerns about food safety and environmental sanitation that would warrant verification by inspecting recent health and infection control survey results.
Communication and access issues appear repeatedly. Several reviewers reported difficulty contacting management or getting timely answers from the team; some described appointment-only visitation policies and restricted access that made it hard to see loved ones without prior scheduling. Families also reported perceived unfair or inconsistent enforcement of rules and trouble escalating issues to someone in charge. These process and transparency issues amplify distress when clinical or cleanliness concerns arise.
There is a clear pattern of highly inconsistent experiences: many glowing reviews contrast directly with accounts of "drastically changed" conditions or an institution that has "gone downhill" in recent years. This suggests variability that could stem from staffing turnover, management changes, or uneven implementation of policies. Some reviewers explicitly note improvements under new ownership or credit particular administrators for responsiveness, while others continue to report persistent problems.
Specific incidents that stand out and should be investigated by prospective families include allegations of theft (wheelchair, phone charger), third-shift neglect or absenteeism, refusal to help move belongings or assist residents, privacy violations during personal care, and reports of staff misconduct and gossip. Food- and medication-related issues—including wrong medications and meals not delivered as ordered—were reported often enough to be a recurring concern. Conversely, named staff were repeatedly singled out for exemplary performance, and families often expressed gratitude and a willingness to return if needed.
For families considering Big Oak Rehab, the reviews suggest taking a cautious, evidence-based approach: ask for current staffing ratios and turnover statistics (especially for night shift), request recent state inspection and deficiency reports, inquire about infection control and pest-management protocols, clarify visitation policies and how to escalate concerns, and meet the primary nursing and therapy staff who would care for your loved one. Verify wound-care and medication administration procedures and ask for examples of how the facility handles missed care or safety incidents. If possible, seek references from recent families who had similar clinical needs (e.g., post-op rehab, dialysis support) and ask management how they address the variability in staff performance reported by other families.
In summary, Big Oak Rehab elicits both strong endorsements for compassionate, effective rehab and nursing care (often tied to specific staff members) and serious criticisms around inconsistency, safety, hygiene, and communication. The facility may deliver excellent, family-focused care at times, but the recurring negative reports—particularly those alleging neglect, sanitation failures, and management unresponsiveness—are significant and should prompt careful due diligence prior to placement. Prospective residents and families should verify current conditions, staffing, infection control, and recent regulatory findings, and build in regular oversight and clear communication channels if choosing this facility.
