The reviews of Riverside Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing are highly polarized and reveal a facility with pronounced variability in performance. Many families and former patients report exceptionally positive experiences: compassionate, professional nurses and CNAs; an effective rehabilitation/therapy program that produces demonstrable improvements; an active and person-centered recreation program; and attentive maintenance and administrative staff who respond and support families. Multiple reviews specifically praise individual staff members (nurses, DONs, recreation staff, and maintenance) and events that create a family-like atmosphere. Several accounts describe clean, safe units with strong infection-control practices and successful discharges home, indicating the facility can deliver good clinical and social care under the right conditions.
In contrast, a substantial portion of reviews allege serious lapses in basic care and safety. Common negative themes are chronic understaffing and slow or absent responses to call bells, which reviewers link directly to neglectful outcomes: residents left in bed for months, delays in toileting, inadequate bathing, and prolonged soiling. Multiple reports document poor wound management, pressure ulcers/skin breakdown, infections (including MRSA/staph), sepsis, and at least one death attributed by reviewers to inadequate care. These are among the most severe and recurring concerns and have prompted reported complaints to regulatory bodies (Department of Health, Adult Protective Services) and even police involvement according to reviewers.
Facility cleanliness and food services show sharp contrasts in the reviews. Some families find the facility spotless with visible sanitation protocols, while others describe filthy conditions, urine-soaked beds, foul smells, and dirty staff areas. Dining complaints include poor food quality, lack of fresh fruit, and specific operational failures — for example, frozen foods served cold due to a broken oven and reports of no drinking water. Maintenance emerges as a small but consistent bright spot: individual maintenance staff are frequently cited as helpful and responsive, sometimes correcting issues (e.g., fixing vents) that families appreciate.
Staff professionalism and culture appear uneven and highly dependent on unit, shift, or particular employees. Several reviewers praise administrators and managers (named individuals such as Emily, Colleen, certain DONs and social workers) who are approachable and proactive; other reviews accuse management of ignoring complaints, poor morale, and failure to address systemic problems. Multiple accounts describe unprofessional or abusive behavior by some staff — from verbal/emotional mistreatment to allegations of theft and medication diversion. There are even reports of staff smelling of marijuana. These allegations contribute to a sense of unpredictability: some residents receive person-centered, attentive care, while others experience neglect or worse.
Recreation, community activities, and the facility’s smaller size are recurring positives. Many families report that residents participate in music, crafts, festivals, and outings, and that staff actively encourage and transport residents to activities. These aspects contribute to a family-like environment that some reviewers find fosters happiness and recovery. Rehab outcomes are a separate positive theme: a number of reviewers credit the therapy department with helping loved ones regain strength and return home.
Operational and systemic patterns are notable. Reviews point to high staff turnover and a revolving door of personnel, which likely drives inconsistencies in care and institutional knowledge. Several reviews mention the facility’s admission practices (e.g., first-available bed) and for-profit framing as problematic for residents needing higher assistance. Many negative reports tie poor outcomes directly to low staffing ratios and distracted or inattentive staff (cell phone use cited). Conversely, multiple positive reviews emphasize that when staffing is adequate and leadership is present and engaged, outcomes and family satisfaction are high.
Overall, the sentiment is highly mixed with starkly divergent experiences. The facility demonstrates clear strengths — namely, strong rehab services, dedicated individual staff members, meaningful activities, and a small-community feel — but also serious risks tied to understaffing, inconsistent management, infection and wound-care failures, sanitation lapses, and allegations of abuse or theft. For prospective residents or families, the most relevant patterns are the variability of care by unit/shift and the frequency with which staffing shortfalls correlate with the worst outcomes. If considering Riverside, families should (1) ask about current staffing levels and turnover, (2) identify named staff and unit leadership and whether they are present consistently, (3) inspect units for cleanliness and inquire about food-service reliability and equipment maintenance, and (4) confirm wound-care and infection-control protocols and documentation. These steps may help discern whether a specific unit or time period aligns with the positive reviews or the more severe negative reports.
