Overall sentiment across the reviews for Linden Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation is highly mixed and polarized. A recurring, strongly positive theme is the facility's rehabilitation services: numerous reviewers praise physical therapy and occupational therapy staff by name, describing caring, effective therapists who improved mobility, strength, and independence. Many families report successful short-term rehab outcomes (walking again, discharge stronger), a personalized therapy plan, clear communication from therapists, and a generally encouraging, motivating therapy environment.
Alongside therapy strengths, many reviewers also describe compassionate, attentive CNAs and nurses—particularly on day shifts—and a clean, modern appearance in parts of the facility. Specific admissions and intake staff are repeatedly mentioned as reassuring and helpful; some visitors reported efficient check-in, virtual visitation options during COVID restrictions, and proactive communication from particular employees. Housekeeping and some teams are credited with keeping rooms and common spaces tidy and odor-free in many accounts.
However, a very large and serious set of negative patterns emerges across many reviews. The most frequent complaints center on inconsistent and deficient nursing care: missed baths, delayed or omitted medications, soiled or unchanged bedding, delayed assistance with toileting, unattended call bells, and long waits for staff response—especially at night and on later shifts. Multiple reviewers report short-staffing and unresponsiveness from night/evening staff, leading to discomfort, pain, and neglect for residents. Several accounts describe residents left in urine or feces for extended periods, wet diapers, and worsening skin conditions or bedsores attributed to poor care.
Sanitation and safety concerns are prominent in a number of reviews: reports include sightings of rats, roaches, and mice; feces found in drawers or rooms; deplorable bedding; and general allegations of unsanitary conditions. These accounts are paired with troubling allegations about wound care and infection control, with some families describing poor attention to pressure wounds and pneumonia or other infections developing or worsening. In several instances reviewers reported medication errors or failure to follow medical orders, missed doctor appointments or poor transportation coordination that led to hospital readmissions, and even transfers that families say occurred without consent.
Trust, communication, and management issues are another major theme. Many families describe unhelpful, rude, or dismissive front-desk and administrative staff, difficulty getting straight answers, lost or discarded documentation, delayed return of belongings, and billing disputes including extra charges. Several reviewers explicitly call out theft and loss of personal items—including clothes, personal effects, and even alleged credit card fraud. A number of reviews also state that the facility failed to notify families appropriately at critical moments, and there are alarming allegations about denial of family access (including being denied viewing a body) and restrictive or poorly explained policies that upset families.
There are also reports of abusive and unsafe incidents in some accounts: alleged physical assault, inappropriate touching by staff, and claims that staff spoke about patients disrespectfully or treated them rudely. A subset of reviews mentions transfers of residents with dementia without proper safeguards, inadequate supervision of dementia patients leading to wandering, and notable variability in the skill and empathy of staff across shifts and units. These accounts suggest inconsistency in training, oversight, and quality-control across the facility.
Food quality and dining are frequently criticized: many reviewers describe poor-quality meals, cold or late food service, and dietary mistakes (including religious/dietary concerns). Conversely, a smaller number of families praise the food and homemade meals, showing inconsistency in kitchen performance. Activities and social services are also called out as insufficient in some reports, with families noting lack of structure or engagement for residents.
Taken together, the reviews depict a facility with clear strengths and persistent, serious weaknesses. Strengths cluster around rehabilitation/therapy and pockets of highly committed staff who provide compassionate, effective care; weaknesses are systemic—short-staffing (especially nights), inconsistent nursing and supervisory oversight, sanitation and pest issues, lost belongings/theft allegations, poor administration/communication, billing disputes, and reports of neglect or abuse. Importantly, the variability of experiences is stark: some families describe excellent care and a very positive experience, while others describe neglect, safety hazards, and traumatic outcomes.
For prospective families or referral sources, these patterns suggest several practical precautions: visit at different times of day (including nights) to observe staffing levels and responsiveness; ask for written care plans and 24/7 nursing management availability; verify policies on personal belongings and inventory procedures; document and escalate any missed medications, wounds, or pest sightings immediately; request named therapy staff and schedule if rehab is the priority; clarify billing practices and get charges in writing; and demand clear communication protocols and a defined contact person for concerns. The reviews indicate that outcomes can range from excellent rehabilitation and compassionate care to serious neglect and safety issues—so careful, ongoing oversight by families or advocates is advised if choosing this facility.
