Overall impression: The reviews present a sharply mixed and polarized picture of Teaneck Nursing Center. Several reviewers praise the facility's physical environment and many front-line staff members, describing the building as brand-new, clean, and finished with high-end, hotel-grade materials. At the same time, a number of serious allegations raise major concerns about safety, clinical care, privacy, and management. The balance of these reports suggests a facility that looks excellent and has pockets of strong staff performance, but also has recurring, significant quality and safety problems reported by multiple reviewers.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Reviews include two distinct narratives. Positive comments describe nurses who "do a very good job," professional staff, and strong rehabilitation services; some reviewers explicitly called it the best rehabilitation center in the area. Conversely, multiple reviews assert substandard clinical care: minimal or shoddy care, insufficient physical therapy, untreated infections, neglected diabetes foot checks, development of sores on heels, and even an asserted death related to negligence. These medical concerns are among the most serious themes and, if accurate, signal failures in clinical oversight, wound and infection management, and chronic disease monitoring. Several reviewers also complained of missed callbacks and unresponsiveness from staff, compounding the perception of inadequate clinical attention.
Safety, security, and privacy: A prominent cluster of reviews alleges theft and privacy breaches. Numerous reports say personal belongings went missing despite being labeled; a portable computer and Social Security benefits were specifically mentioned as stolen. There is also an allegation of a psychiatrist committing a HIPAA violation, and at least one reviewer alleged a doctor's involvement in fraud. These claims, particularly the alleged theft of benefits and the privacy violation, point to potential systemic issues in resident security, financial safety, and confidentiality practices that warrant urgent administrative and regulatory attention.
Staff, management, and communication: Many reviewers singled out individual staff and departments for praise — nurses, activity staff, the administrator, and front desk personnel were described as helpful, professional, and focused on patient dignity by multiple people. However, this positive feedback coexists with reports of unresponsive staff, missed callbacks, and an administrator decision (sending a resident to a psychiatric ER on their birthday) that caused significant emotional distress for the resident and family. There are also complaints that a social worker failed to file needed paperwork. This pattern suggests variability in staff competence and judgment, and potential weaknesses in communication, discharge/transfer decision-making, and case management processes.
Environment and amenities: The facility's physical plant receives consistently positive remarks. Reviewers called it extremely clean, brand-new, and outfitted with hotel-grade fixtures and high-end materials. Activity programs and dignity-preserving practices were noted positively as well. On the downside, there are pragmatic complaints such as a very small parking lot. More troubling are sanitation allegations (fecal matter in bathtubs) that contradict the otherwise-strong cleanliness reports; these conflicting accounts may indicate episodic lapses rather than persistent cleanliness failure.
Patient experience and visitation: Several reviews describe activities and dignity-related programming positively, but others describe serious negative personal experiences: ruined birthdays, behavioral and dementia-related challenges that may not have been managed well, restricted or difficult visitation, and ongoing facility issues reported by multiple families. The emotional impact of some administrative decisions and the difficulty some families had in visiting or communicating with staff contribute to a perception that resident-centered care is uneven.
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews reveal two consistent patterns: (1) the facility has high-quality infrastructure and many individual staff members who are praised for professionalism and helpfulness; and (2) there are repeated, serious allegations around security (theft), clinical neglect (untreated infections, missed foot checks, inadequate therapy), privacy breaches, and problematic administrative decisions. These are not isolated minor complaints but touch on safety, legal, and ethical domains. Families and regulators should treat reports of theft, HIPAA violations, fraud, and medical neglect seriously and investigate. Prospective residents and their families should weigh the strong physical environment and some praised staff against the documented risks and seek clear, documented answers from management about security, incident reporting, staffing ratios, clinical oversight, infection control, and visitation policies before committing.
Concluding assessment: Teaneck Nursing Center appears to excel in facility appearance and has many staff members who provide compassionate, professional service. However, multiple reviews allege serious and potentially systemic problems — missing belongings and funds, privacy violations, clinical neglect leading to infections and sores, and troubling management decisions — that materially affect resident safety and well-being. The overall sentiment is divided: for some the center is an excellent, clean, and dignified rehabilitation option; for others it is a place with alarming lapses that prompted warnings not to send loved ones there. The magnitude and seriousness of the negative allegations merit careful inquiry by families and oversight by regulatory authorities.
