Overall sentiment across the reviews of Andrus on Hudson is mixed but leans toward positive for rehabilitation and the compassionate direct-care workforce, while showing recurring operational and safety concerns that families should evaluate closely. The strongest and most consistent praise centers on the people who provide hands-on care: aides, therapists, and many nurses are repeatedly described as kind, hardworking, and willing to go above and beyond. Multiple reviewers credited the PT/OT and rehab teams with concrete improvements in mobility, eating, communication, and the ability for residents to return home. Front desk personnel and business office staff also receive frequent commendation for being welcoming and helpful, and several families reported that individual staff members became like family to residents. Recreation and dietary staff are similarly praised in many accounts for active programming, dietary accommodation, and daily engagement efforts.
Facility and environment comments are also mixed but contain many positives. Numerous reviewers highlight the attractive grounds, Hudson River views, private rooms (including single rooms with river views), clean common areas, and wheelchair accessibility. The building and grounds are often described as beautiful, quiet, and well-kept, and many families appreciate on-site services such as barbers, religious programming, and pet visits. For budget-conscious families the facility is seen as offering good value, and some reviews specifically note that long-tenured staff provide continuity of care.
However, a set of recurring operational concerns tempers the positive reports. Staffing shortages are the most frequently mentioned negative: families and reviewers describe insufficient RN coverage, a lack of aides for timely bathroom assistance, and delayed response times — especially at night. These shortages have practical consequences (slow call responses, longer waits for assistance, and meal-service disruptions when elevators are unreliable). Several reviewers said management is aware and has been addressing staffing problems, but comments indicate issues persist and vary by shift and over time.
A more serious and troubling theme in the reviews is variability in clinical quality and safety. While many reviewers praise nursing and clinical teams, there are multiple accounts alleging neglect, poor hygiene, bedsores, missed feedings, and even alleged abuse. A few reviewers reported extreme incidents (e.g., refusal to hospitalize, concerns about medication management, and video-documented mistreatment). There are also comments raising concerns about physician documentation and credentialing. These reports appear to be less common than positive care experiences but are significant: they point to inconsistent standards of care between staff members, shifts, or time periods and represent high-risk issues families must investigate directly.
Cleanliness and maintenance comments are similarly mixed. Many families report immaculate rooms and common areas, while others report filthy rooms, soiled diapers, dirty floors, and even pest sightings. Several reviewers noted specific maintenance problems — a broken elevator (one of two), boarded entrances or construction, TV or water outages, and unclear signage — that negatively affect access, mealtimes, and overall convenience. A handful of accounts describe sluggish or unresolved maintenance responses, which contribute to frustration.
Dining and activities show a split pattern: multiple reviewers praise consistent meal service, dietary staff accommodating special requests, and plentiful, nutritious meals with involvement from a dietary liaison. Conversely, others complained about cold or unappetizing meals, limited fresh fruit and salads, and poor coffee. Activity programs are robust in many reports — with music, games, crafts, religious services, and social centers on each floor — but some visitors observed little to no activity on particular floors or shifts, leaving residents idle in front of the TV.
Management and communication also show variation. Several reviews praise new management for being responsive, investing in safety and dignity, and turning the facility around after rough years. Families appreciated attentive admissions staff and case managers who communicated well and eased transitions. Yet other reviews describe poor follow-through after discharge, problems arranging home health or referrals, and uneven responsiveness to serious complaints. Taken together, the evidence suggests that leadership improvements have occurred for some families but that consistency remains a challenge.
Key takeaways and practical advice for prospective families: Andrus on Hudson has clear strengths in rehabilitation services, many compassionate frontline caregivers, attractive grounds, and certain service areas (admits/concierge, recreation, dietary) that are highly praised. At the same time, recurrent staffing shortages, occasional maintenance and cleanliness lapses, variable clinical quality between shifts/floors, and a small number of serious safety allegations warrant careful scrutiny. If considering placement, families should visit multiple times and at different times of day, ask specific questions about RN staffing ratios and aide coverage, review incident and inspection histories, meet the rehab team and medical staff, observe mealtime and activity periods, and confirm discharge and aftercare planning. The pattern in the reviews suggests the facility can provide excellent, compassionate care for many residents — but consistency and safety depend on staffing and management follow-through, so vigilance and firsthand evaluation are essential.
