Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: reviews range from glowing praise for individual employees and rehabilitation outcomes to serious, repeated safety and quality-of-care allegations. A large proportion of families and residents name and praise particular staff and social workers (notably Sirlina, Heather, Selina, Sheldon and several CNAs/RNs) for being compassionate, communicative, and effective in coordinating care and therapy. Many positive accounts emphasize successful rehab progress, attentive nursing or CNA care, good meals, a welcoming dining and activity atmosphere, and instances where case management and discharge planning were handled well.
At the same time, a significant and recurring set of concerns appear across many reviews. Safety and quality problems include medication errors, delayed antibiotics and other meds, documentation mistakes, ignored call lights, and incidents that led to hospital readmissions. Several reviewers reported that relatives arrived to find a loved one unresponsive or suffering worsening infection (UTI/sepsis risk) after what they describe as inadequate monitoring. There are numerous reports of falls and repeat hospital transfers that families attribute to neglect or insufficient supervision.
Cleanliness and infection control are major areas of contradiction. Some reviews describe the facility as immaculately clean and well-kept, with responsive housekeeping and no odors. Conversely, many other reviews report pest infestations (mice, rats, roaches), soiled linens, urine odor, flies, and rooms with visible filth. Multiple reviewers explicitly called out unsafe infection control practices, including alleged placement of patients with COVID or infections inappropriately, lack of isolation, and delayed testing. These conflicting accounts suggest inconsistent environmental standards that vary by unit, shift, or time period.
Staffing and communication are recurring themes with divided experiences. Numerous families praise front-desk/security, specific nurses, CNAs, therapists, and social workers for being professional, caring, and communicative (frequent positive mentions of named employees and examples of follow-through). Yet there are many complaints about other staff being rude, condescending, impatient, or even physically abusive in isolated but serious allegations. A frequent complaint is unresponsiveness: clinical or administrative staff not returning calls, voicemail boxes full, phones not answered, and delayed coordination (for example, transportation for dialysis or missed callbacks). Social work is similarly mixed — some reviewers report excellent, supportive caseworkers, while others describe social workers as unreachable or prioritizing institutional goals over patient needs.
Serious allegations around theft, abuse, and management accountability appear repeatedly and are among the most concerning patterns. Multiple reports mention money or personal items going missing, belongings packed incorrectly or lost by staff, and even accusations of staff stealing. There are also several reports of physical mistreatment (smacking, abuse by aides), and families describing management as unresponsive or dismissive when these issues were reported. A number of families indicated they filed complaints with regulatory authorities (Department of Health, BBB) or considered legal action, and some reviews reference ongoing investigations.
Operational concerns include understaffing, inconsistent medication administration (including a two-day delay in an antibiotic in one account), inadequate supervision on nights or holidays (no staff present to administer meds on Christmas in one report), and maintenance/renovation needs (old furniture, small rooms, limited bathrooms). Some reviewers explicitly raised financial concerns — alleging that the facility collects money but does not invest in necessary staffing or upkeep. These operational problems appear tied to the inconsistent resident experience: while some residents receive attentive, family-like care, others report neglect and unsafe conditions.
On balance, Crown Heights Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation presents as an institution with pockets of excellence — especially in rehabilitation services and among named social workers, therapists, and certain nursing/CNA staff — but also with systemic and recurring problems that have led to harm or serious risk in multiple accounts. Key strengths are compassionate individual caregivers, effective rehab and therapy outcomes for many residents, and good dining/housekeeping in many units. Key weaknesses are inconsistent clinical care (medication/documentation errors), potential safety hazards (falls, infections, pests), allegations of theft and abuse, poor communication and phone responsiveness, and management lapses in addressing complaints.
For prospective families: if evaluating this facility, consider direct verification steps — meet the interdisciplinary team, ask about staffing ratios and infection-control policies, check for recent citations or investigation outcomes, verify how personal belongings are handled, and get specific commitments regarding medication management and communication protocols. Given the variability reflected in reviews, close family oversight and regular communication with the assigned social worker or unit nursing leadership appear essential. The facility may be a good fit for some residents (particularly for time-limited rehab under responsive staff), but the number and severity of negative reports suggest caution for high-acuity or especially vulnerable residents unless the facility can demonstrate consistent improvements and assurances around safety, staffing, and accountability.
