Overall sentiment across these reviews is highly mixed but leans strongly negative. A sizable portion of reviewers describe extremely poor sanitation and safety conditions: pervasive urine and fecal odors, dried bodily fluids on floors, mold and fungus in rooms and on air-conditioning units, infestations of roaches, mice, and lice, and broken plumbing or leaking ceilings. These environmental problems are repeated in many accounts and are often described alongside inadequate maintenance practices (e.g., maintenance staff not entering patient rooms to clean), unsanitary supplies or dispensers, and visible filth in patient areas. Several reviewers explicitly state the facility feels "unsanitary," "disgusting," or like a "hell hole," and a number urge others to relocate loved ones immediately or to have the facility shut down.
Clinical care and safety are another major theme of concern. Multiple reports describe delayed or inadequate medical attention — examples include late diagnosis of cellulitis, inadequate pain control, and an account that a resident "almost lost her leg." There are also several accounts of falls and head injuries sustained in the facility. Reviewers cite blocked access to residents' personal physicians, misdiagnoses by the on-staff physician, and failure to follow hospital discharge recommendations. Infection control lapses are described (roommates placed together with a COVID-positive patient, staff unaware of infectious status, poor outbreak handling), raising additional safety concerns for vulnerable residents.
Staffing and interpersonal care show a wide variance in experiences. Many reviewers report understaffing, overworked employees, inexperienced trainees, or staff who are unhelpful or rude. Specific allegations include nurses arriving late, not wearing gloves, aides who are overburdened, language barriers with CNAs, and unprofessional behavior by social work or administration. Conversely, numerous reviews praise individual staff members and teams: nurses Kathleen, Grant, and Roxanne are named positively; social workers and admissions staff such as Mamadu and Ms. Afua receive commendation for being helpful; some families report that certain therapists, nurses, and aides provided compassionate, competent care and that loved ones improved while there. These divergent perspectives suggest inconsistency in staffing quality and training, with a subset of employees performing well despite systemic problems.
Operational and managerial issues are repeatedly mentioned. Reviewers describe poor communication with families, difficulty reaching staff by phone, inventories or confiscation of personal clothing, and alleged theft of belongings. Several accounts accuse management of being absent or ineffective, while others reference "new management" and planned renovations as a hopeful sign. There are also allegations regarding oversight and regulation — phrases like "questionable licensing," "no oversight," and comparisons to jail conditions indicate reviewers fear insufficient external regulation and enforcement. A few reviewers attribute some problems to limited funding and low wages, suggesting the facility may be under-resourced and reliant on Medicaid/Medicare funding.
Recreational and environmental factors show a split picture. Some reviewers praise live music, family-like recreation programs, and socialization activities; a handful of Spanish-speaking reviewers specifically compliment therapies, nursing, and social programs. However, many families say residents experienced little socialization or activities. Physical plant issues — such as paint chipping, broken furniture, rat traps on window seals, overcrowded shared rooms, and lack of secure storage — contribute to a perception that the facility lacks dignity and comfort for residents.
Patterns worth highlighting: (1) persistent and repeated reports of unsanitary conditions and pest problems that directly threaten resident safety and dignity; (2) nontrivial clinical lapses, including delayed diagnoses and inadequate follow-up, which in some reports led to severe harm; (3) highly inconsistent staff performance, with notable individual caregivers praised amid broader allegations of neglect and understaffing; and (4) concerns about management, oversight, and resourcing, though a number of reviewers mention incoming or new management and planned improvements.
In summary, reviewers present a polarized view of Riverdale Rehabilitation and Nursing Care Center: some families and patients describe attentive, compassionate care from individual staff members, decent rehab outcomes for certain residents, and promising reports of new management, while a larger body of reviews raise urgent red flags about cleanliness, infection control, safety, clinical quality, staffing, and management. Anyone evaluating this facility should weigh these conflicting reports carefully, prioritize an in-person inspection focused on sanitation and infection-control practices, verify licensing and regulatory history, speak directly with clinical staff about care protocols, and consider recent changes in leadership or operations that might affect current conditions before placing a vulnerable loved one there.
