Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers praise the staff, in particular individual caregivers (several reviewers named Allicyn/Allicyn Smith) and the therapy/rehab team for achieving strong recovery outcomes. At the same time, there are numerous and serious operational and safety complaints — including persistent foul odors, pest sightings, neglect, theft, and security lapses — that drive very negative recommendations from other reviewers. The facility appears to deliver excellent care in many individual interactions, yet suffers from systemic inconsistencies that produce widely different resident and family experiences.
Care quality shows a clear split. Positive accounts describe attentive, compassionate nurses and therapists who went above and beyond: helping a family member recover from major surgery, providing excellent rehabilitation that returned residents home and walking, and supporting families through end-of-life care. Multiple reviewers emphasize professionalism, compassion, and specific staff who made a meaningful difference. Conversely, several reviews recount neglectful incidents — for example, a resident left in a soiled diaper for hours — and allegations of theft (clothes, cigarettes). Some reviewers explicitly state that their relative became sicker while at the facility. These opposing reports suggest variability in the level of direct caregiving depending on staff on duty or particular units.
Staff behavior and management issues are recurring themes. Many reviews single out staff kindness, friendliness, and helpful administrators; yet others report staff cursing loudly in hallways and unprofessional conduct. Multiple reviewers cite poor coordination between departments, lack of accountability, and a decline in quality over time or after staff changes. There are also complaints about delays for physician follow-up (a new doctor not seen for months) and about being unprepared to meet specific care needs. This mix points to areas where leadership, supervision, staff training, and communication could be inconsistent or insufficient.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance are a major area of concern. Several reviewers describe strong facility upkeep and “clean” spaces, while many others report severe problems: pervasive odors of urine, mildew, and sewage; roach sightings; heater outages leading to cold rooms; and unfinished or delayed repairs (e.g., wheelchair brake not working, beds not fitting until later). The contrast between “clean facility” comments and vivid reports of filth and smell suggests that conditions may vary by unit, room, time, or staff on duty. These environmental issues raise infection control, dignity, and safety concerns for residents.
Dining, activities, and daily life show a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. Some families praised recreation staff and noted enjoyable activities (with specific mention of Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays as fun days). The recreation director was frequently complimented. However, other reviewers report operational problems such as long waits for dinner (one report of an hour-and-a-half wait) and activity programming that is limited to certain days, implying inconsistent engagement for residents on other days.
Safety and security issues are notable. Beyond theft allegations, reviewers pointed to an unlocked front door as a security concern and cited policies restricting family members from staying overnight with residents. Equipment safety problems (a wheelchair that did not lock) and heater outages add to risk factors. These items, combined with reports of neglect, suggest that families should carefully review safety protocols, visitor/overnight policies, and physical plant maintenance when considering this facility.
Patterns and recommendations drawn from the reviews: the facility appears capable of delivering high-quality, compassionate care — particularly in therapy/rehab and through certain named staff — but exhibits inconsistent execution on cleanliness, safety, and operational reliability. Quality appears to fluctuate by shift or over time, which results in strongly divergent experiences. For families evaluating this center, recommended actions include: visiting at different times of day and on different days to observe cleanliness and staffing; asking about pest-control and odor-management practices; checking response times and nurse call protocols; confirming policies on overnight family stays and security procedures; requesting a list of regular caregiving personnel and therapy schedules; and discussing how the facility handles personal belongings and theft prevention.
In summary, St. Anthony Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center receives frequent praise for individual caregivers, therapy outcomes, and some administrative/rehab teams, but also multiple serious criticisms related to neglect, theft, sanitation, pests, maintenance, and security. These strengths and weaknesses are both repeatedly reported, which indicates that prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong clinical/team-based successes against reported operational and environmental risks and should pursue direct, specific answers from management before admission.
