Overall sentiment in these reviews is deeply mixed but leans heavily toward concern and caution. A significant portion of reviewers report neglectful, inconsistent, and in some cases dangerous care practices: wounds that reopened after seeming to heal, residents left in soiled diapers or on bedpans for extended periods, ignored call bells (particularly overnight and on weekends), missed medications and missed or abbreviated physical therapy sessions. Multiple reviews describe staffing shortages, high turnover, inexperienced or inattentive staff, and low morale, all of which reviewers link to declining quality of care and delayed medical responses. These operational problems are associated with serious outcomes in some reports — rehospitalizations, untreated infections, and even deaths — and several families explicitly warned others not to entrust loved ones to the facility.
Care quality and clinical practice are the central themes of concern. Specific clinical failures cited repeatedly include inadequate wound care and pressure-injury prevention (residents not turned, left wet), poor infection control, incorrect medication administration, ignored IV or monitoring alarms, and delayed or absent doctor visits. Reviewers described cases where nurses allegedly slept on shift and aides were seen using cell phones instead of responding to residents; in several accounts, bedside needs such as water, hygiene, and toileting were not provided in a timely manner. These types of lapses are reported as recurring patterns (nights, weekends, and during staff shortages), rather than isolated incidents. Several reviewers reported improved health after transferring their loved ones out of the facility, which they cite as evidence that the care there was substandard.
At the same time, many reviews praise individual staff members, therapeutic programs, and specific departments. Physical therapy and rehabilitation receive repeated positive mentions: some residents made clear functional gains, walked again, and left the facility stronger. The Recreation Director, Esther Sylvestri, is singled out for exceptional work organizing activities, knowing residents by name, and supporting family meetings and resident morale. Families also report compassionate, hardworking aides and nurses, clean rooms in some units, effective hospice care, and certain management or coordinators who are responsive. These positive reports indicate the facility has capable staff and functioning programs in places, but the presence of good care is inconsistent and seems to depend heavily on individual employees, shifts, or units.
Facility environment and amenities show a similar divide. Several reviewers describe a pleasant, well-designed facility with clean rooms, ample socialization, and good activities, while others report a drab, outdated, or odorous environment with stained rugs, ripped equipment, poor maintenance (light switches not fixed, lights left on), and substandard food (cold meals, very small portions, low-quality offerings). Dining experiences ranged from satisfaction (three meals with choices, weight gain reported) to complaints about poor food quality and late service. Maintenance and housekeeping are inconsistent: some family members praised clean rooms and changed linens, while others noted odors, stains, broken equipment, and lack of basic comforts like cool water availability outside scheduled times.
Communication and management are recurring friction points. Many reviewers cite poor communication between staff and families, lack of timely updates, reluctance to contact family members, and ineffective or indifferent management. Conversely, other reviewers mention responsive administrators and improved communications under a new administrator. This split suggests variability in leadership responsiveness or recent management changes affecting family perception. Several reviewers explicitly recommend frequent family oversight, urging relatives to check on loved ones often and to demand state inspections when problems are suspected.
Patterns and actionable concerns: complaints cluster around nights and weekends (long call-light waits, reduced staffing), inconsistent therapy delivery (promised twice-daily PT not delivered), substandard incontinence care and wound prevention practices (leading to pressure injuries), and medication/treatment errors or delays (missed meds, ignored alarms). There are also recurring statements about for-profit priorities and skepticism about high online ratings. Positive patterns include effective rehab outcomes for some patients, a strong recreation program (notably Esther), and individual staff who provide excellent and compassionate care. For families considering this facility, the reviews suggest evaluating unit-level staffing, asking specific questions about wound care and turning schedules, confirming therapy schedules in writing, monitoring call-light response performance (including nights and weekends), checking food service standards, and verifying how administration responds to complaints. Frequent in-person visits and documented follow-up are recommended by multiple reviewers as practical risk-mitigation steps.
In summary, West Caldwell Care Center appears to be a facility with pockets of solid care, therapy success stories, and dedicated staff members alongside serious systemic problems: inconsistent clinical care, staffing shortages, communication failures, and maintenance/dining issues. The contrast between glowing and damning reviews is stark: some families experienced excellent rehabilitation and compassionate personnel, while others reported neglect with severe clinical consequences. Prospective residents and families should weigh these mixed signals carefully, perform targeted inquiries (wound prevention, call-light response, staffing ratios, weekend coverage, PT delivery), meet and evaluate day/night staff, and plan for regular monitoring if choosing this facility. Reviewers strongly advise vigilance and documentation; if neglect is suspected, they recommend escalating to management and state surveyors promptly.
