The reviews of Chautauqua Nursing & Rehabilitation Center present a highly polarized and inconsistent picture of the facility. Many reviewers describe deeply troubling instances of neglect, medical oversight, and poor hygiene, while others report compassionate, professional care and successful therapy outcomes. This divergence suggests significant variability in staffing performance, supervision, and possibly in different units or shifts within the facility.
Care quality is the most frequently contested area. A substantial portion of reviews allege serious neglect and lapses in clinical care: falls that resulted in fractures, inadequate rehabilitation leaving patients unable to walk, long-standing pressure ulcers (including at least one described as black and present for months), improper catheter placements causing recurrent UTIs, and dehydration without provision of IV fluids. Several reports claim failure to recognize or act on respiratory distress and other emergencies, resulting in delayed ER transfers and hospitalizations. At least one review mentions regulatory action or multiple state neglect complaints. Conversely, some families report thorough wound care, effective infection management, and successful rehab leading to safe discharge home, indicating that positive clinical outcomes are possible but not consistently achieved.
Staffing, behavior, and training emerge as central themes. Many reviews complain of undertrained or incompetent staff, rude or abusive aides, and poor behavior from nursing supervisors. Frequent mentions of staffing shortages and slow response times (long waits for bathroom assistance, delayed linen changes, and slow medication delivery) underscore systemic capacity issues. Yet numerous reviewers single out individual staff members, especially certain nurses, aides, night-shift employees, housekeeping, and kitchen staff, as compassionate and professional—sometimes described as treating residents like family. This pattern of "some excellent staff, some terrible staff" points to inconsistent hiring, training, and supervision rather than uniformly poor or excellent staffing across the facility.
Facility hygiene and resident dignity are other major concerns. Reviews describe soiled bedding with feces or urine, delayed replacement of linens, residents left in soiled conditions, and reports of residents left in bathrooms or unattended for long periods. There are also allegations of resident theft and missing personal items (clothes, blankets). These reports contribute to a picture of lapses in basic custodial care and resident property protection. At the same time, other reviews praise housekeeping and the quality of meals; the kitchen is highlighted as providing hot, excellent food in several accounts.
Therapy and rehabilitation receive mixed feedback. Some families report effective physical and occupational therapy with good progress and well-managed discharge planning that led to successful transitions home. Other reviewers explicitly state that the facility is not suitable for patients requiring complex rehab—that expected therapy was not provided or was inadequate, and in at least one case a therapy intervention allegedly caused a hematoma. Multiple accounts state that rehab did not meet expectations and sometimes coincided with clinical decline rather than improvement.
Management, communication, and ownership issues are recurring and significant. Reviewers frequently describe poor family communication, unresponsiveness from administration, and reliance on automated answering services. There are accusations that privatization/ownership changes coincided with declines in care quality. Early-morning calls regarding sensitive topics (e.g., 5 a.m. DNR update calls) and inconsistent follow-up on family concerns contribute to frustration. Several writers express intent to report the facility to regulatory agencies, reflecting a high level of distrust.
Safety and clinical governance concerns are prominent: delayed escalation of care, alleged ignoring of breathing distress by nurses, and reports of residents being left unattended in potentially dangerous situations (including in parking lots) point to gaps in supervision and emergency procedures. Multiple reviews mention underpayment of staff and low wages as factors that may affect morale and turnover, which can exacerbate inconsistency in care.
In summary, Chautauqua Nursing & Rehabilitation Center appears to have pockets of very good care—compassionate caregivers, effective night staff, capable housekeeping, and quality food and therapy for some residents. However, those positive experiences sit alongside numerous, serious allegations of neglect, clinical mismanagement, hygiene failures, staff rudeness or abuse, and administrative unresponsiveness. The pattern in the reviews suggests inconsistent standards across shifts or units, possibly linked to staffing shortages, training deficits, and management issues following ownership changes. Families considering this facility should be aware of both the positive testimonials praising individual staff and the repeated, grave concerns raised by others. Prospective residents and families would be prudent to visit in person, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios, wound-care protocols, infection control, incident escalation procedures, and to check recent regulatory inspection reports before making decisions. Regulators and the facility’s management should review training, supervision, incident reporting, and staffing practices to address the widespread and recurring issues noted by reviewers.
