Overall sentiment is deeply mixed and polarized. A large portion of reviews describe exceptional, compassionate, and effective clinical and rehabilitative care: physical, occupational, and speech therapy are frequently singled out as excellent and instrumental to recovery. Many families recount individualized attention, dedicated aides and nurses, and named staff members who provided above-and-beyond support. The facility’s appearance, cleanliness, decorative touches, chapel, and private-room options receive repeated positive mention. Admissions, social work, certain therapists and front-desk employees earn praise for helpfulness and clear guidance, and some reviewers report fast physician visits and smooth coordination of outside appointments.
Counterbalancing those positive accounts are numerous and severe negative reports describing fundamental care failures. There are multiple, specific allegations of residents being left in soiled diapers for extended periods, missed or delayed administration of medications (including a chart mix-up involving Lasix), delayed assistance that resulted in cold meals, unanswered call bells, and night-shift neglect. Several reviewers described serious hygiene lapses, delayed ostomy care, denied showers, dehydration, and poor wound/incision care. These are not isolated minor complaints but, in multiple cases, are presented as causal factors contributing to significant decline or death, prompting some families to threaten legal action or request state investigation.
A prominent theme is inconsistency in staff quality and responsiveness. Many reviews praise individual caregivers by name (Daisy, Patricia, Christina, Tracie Kinkler, Jodie, Debbie, Lisa Watson, Danielle, Elly Silie, Markita/Lorenzo and others) and describe a family-like culture in units staffed by those employees. At the same time, other reviewers describe rude or abusive CNAs, uncaring nurses, and administrators who are dismissive or unempathetic. This variability suggests pockets of very strong staff performance coexisting with understaffed shifts or teams that fail to meet baseline standards. Understaffing and turnover are frequently mentioned and appear to amplify the inconsistent experience — busy or short-handed shifts correlate in reviews with delayed responses and missed care.
Safety and security concerns recur. Multiple reviewers cite near-falls, lack of proper supervision during transfers/pickups, discharge processes that required family members to intervene, and failures in medication administration. Allegations of theft of money and personal items from residents, sometimes involving police, are among the most serious recurring issues; several reviews claim money was taken and that surveillance or administrative follow-through was inadequate. These reports raise significant risk and liability questions for prospective families and warrant immediate inquiry by anyone considering placement.
Communication and management problems form another major cluster. Families report poor or inconsistent notification of test results, medication changes, isolation/quarantine status during the pandemic, and admission/application outcomes. A number of reviewers describe administrative mix-ups, delayed applicant responses, or denials after prolonged waits — including at least one example of an apologetic communication followed by further denial. There are also accounts alleging unprofessional managerial behavior, including pressure to change online reviews. Together these complaints point to weaknesses in leadership, transparency, and complaint resolution systems.
Dining and environment receive mixed marks. Many reviewers praise cleanliness, decor, and a comfortable, home-like environment with engaging activities. Conversely, there are repeated reports of cold or poor-quality meals, lack of vegetarian options, and loud hallway music on particular days. For some residents the dining experience appears acceptable or even excellent; for others it is a source of dissatisfaction and concern, especially when meals are the primary daily nutrition.
Patterns across the reviews suggest a facility with strong clinical rehabilitation strengths and pockets of highly dedicated staff, but also with systemic problems affecting safety, basic personal care, property security, and administrative responsiveness. The extremes in ratings — from glowing five-star endorsements to urgent “stay away” warnings — indicate that experience at this facility can vary dramatically based on unit, shift, and specific staff assigned. Prospective residents and families should weigh the documented strengths in therapy and individualized care against the reports of serious lapses in hygiene, medication administration, theft, and communication.
Recommendations for families considering Our Lady’s Center: (1) Ask detailed, unit-specific questions about staffing levels (especially night shift) and turnover; (2) Request information on incident reporting, theft prevention/camera policies, and how the facility follows up on missing items or medication errors; (3) Meet or speak with the unit manager, therapy leads, and social work/case management prior to admission and ask for references from recent discharges; (4) Create a written care plan with clear responsibilities for hygiene, med administration, and mobility/safety checks; and (5) Visit across multiple times/shifts if possible to observe response times, mealtime service, and staff-resident interactions. Given the mixed but consequential nature of the complaints, due diligence and ongoing advocacy are advisable for anyone placing a loved one here.
