Overall sentiment: Reviews for Fulton Center are highly mixed but trend strongly toward serious concern. While a notable subset of reviewers praise individual staff members, the activities department, recent remodeling, and some clinical successes, a large and recurring set of complaints describe systemic problems that affect resident safety, hygiene, and medical care. Many families reported disturbing incidents (unsanitary rooms, medication errors, delayed medical attention, wound development, and even deaths), and those negative reports are frequent and detailed enough to indicate repeated, structural issues rather than isolated events.
Care quality and clinical oversight: The dominant theme across negative reviews is substandard clinical care and oversight. Multiple reviewers described medication problems (delays up to an hour, missed or withheld medicines, double dosing, missing insulin supplies, incorrect discharge prescriptions, and pharmacy miscommunications). There are repeated accounts of delayed or absent doctor visits, inadequate pain management, misdiagnoses or inconsistent assessments (including allegedly incorrect cancer prognoses), and delays to critical treatments. Reported clinical consequences include weight loss, dehydration, progression of wounds to bedsores or open sores, rehospitalizations, and at least a few reviewer-asserted deaths tied to neglect or delayed care. Conversely, some families reported effective rehabilitation and attentive doctors/therapists, but those positive clinical reports are less numerous and often specific to particular staff or episodes.
Staffing, responsiveness, and behavior: Understaffing and slow responsiveness are recurring complaints. Many reviewers say call lights go unanswered for long periods, residents are left soiled or unfed, and night shifts are particularly thin. At the same time, a number of reviews single out compassionate, hardworking aides, nurses, therapists, and activities staff (names repeatedly mentioned: Albee, Cleveland, Ricky, Denise, Lona). The picture is therefore one of inconsistent staffing quality—with some employees praised highly while broader staffing levels, turnover, and possible use of agency or out-of-area staff are blamed for care gaps. Several reviews also allege rude, discriminatory, or abusive behavior by staff members, which compounds family distrust.
Hygiene, infection control, and safety: Cleanliness is a major, repeated complaint. Reports include rooms and hallways smelling of urine and feces, soiled linens, flooded bathrooms, sticky floors, infrequent showers, and residents left uncleaned. Infection control concerns include reported COVID outbreaks (some reviewers saying these were unreported), MRSA and recurring UTIs, and slow or inadequate responses to infection signs. Safety concerns extend to wandering residents, unsupervised patients in two-person rooms, falls with delayed transfer to hospital, and equipment or care lapses that reviewers judged dangerous. Positive counterpoints exist—some reviewers report secure entrances, alarms on beds/wheelchairs, and visible security measures—but these do not consistently mitigate the hygiene and safety reports.
Therapy, rehabilitation, and activities: The facility receives polarized feedback on therapy and activities. Several families praise the activities department (Lona receives repeated positive mentions) and report meaningful engagement, events, and improvement in residents’ quality of life. Some reviewers also credit physical and occupational therapy with successful rehabilitation outcomes. However, many others report little to no therapy, canceled or absent sessions, and inadequate therapy staffing—especially when family expectations were for a rehabilitative stay. This split suggests variability by unit, time period, or individual care teams.
Dining, housekeeping, and personal effects: Meal quality and handling are frequent complaints—reports include unappetizing or inedible food, food served on paper plates, meals mishandled, and residents not receiving three meals a day or individualized diets. Housekeeping problems extend to soiled linens, missing pillows/blankets, and lost or stolen laundry/personal items (perfume, clothing). Some reviews, however, describe clean rooms and good food, indicating inconsistent performance across the facility.
Management, communication, and administration: A major theme is poor communication and perceived administrative failure. Families report unreturned calls, unresponsive social workers (Amy Blanc named as unresponsive by some), inaccurate or contradictory documentation, and painful discharge or pharmacy errors. Several reviewers allege management prioritizes billing and appearance over patient care, and some allege regulatory or legal issues (claims about revoked therapy licenses, Medicaid fraud allegations, complaints filed with the state Department of Health). Other reviewers describe supportive administration and clear communication—again indicating significant inconsistency and possibly recent operational changes or variable leadership across units.
Facilities, appearance, and security: Reviewers note juxtaposed strengths and weaknesses in the physical plant. Positive mentions include newly remodeled areas, updated furniture, and good security measures (locked doors, buzzers, alarms). Negative mentions focus on neglected grounds (rotted fence, weeds), “dark and cold energy,” and rooms that smell or are physically unclean. The visible investment in appearance and activities is contrasted repeatedly with concerns about the clinical backbone needed to support vulnerable residents.
Notable patterns and actionable concerns: Recurrent, specific issues include: medication administration problems; residents left in soiled conditions; bedsores and wound neglect; slow or absent clinical response; possible infection-control lapses; and poor communication from social work and management. Repeated praise for a subset of staff (named individuals and departments) suggests that some personnel are committed and effective, but systemic problems—staffing levels, leadership, and operations—appear to undermine consistent care. Several reviewers urge close monitoring by families, daily visits, or avoiding the facility entirely. A number of reviews mention complaints filed with authorities or intentions to escalate concerns legally or to regulators.
Conclusion and guidance: The reviews paint a conflicted portrait: Fulton Center has pockets of strong, compassionate staff, a lively activities program, and physical improvements, but also multiple serious, recurring allegations of neglect, poor clinical care, medication and pharmacy errors, hygiene failures, and administrative unresponsiveness. Prospective families should weigh these polarized reports carefully: verify current staffing levels and clinical oversight, ask for recent inspection and complaint records, request specific care plans for wound prevention and medication administration, confirm therapy schedules, and arrange frequent in-person visits during a stay. If a loved one is admitted, close monitoring—documenting incidents, communication, and care timelines—appears imperative based on the patterns described by reviewers.
