Overall sentiment across these reviews is highly mixed and polarized: several families and residents report excellent rehabilitation outcomes, compassionate caregivers, clean updated rooms, and a supportive, family-like atmosphere — while other reviewers describe serious lapses in basic nursing care, safety, communication, and management professionalism. The most consistently praised areas are physical and occupational therapy (frequently called “excellent” and credited for rehabilitation success), and certain frontline staff members who are repeatedly named for outstanding care. Multiple reviewers emphasize that when the right aides and therapists are present, the facility can deliver very good clinical improvement, attentive care, and a positive environment where families feel informed and residents thrive.
However, an equally strong and alarming set of complaints centers on inconsistency and risk: many reviews describe poor communication from staff and management (unreturned calls, ignored questions), high staff turnover and understaffing, and inconsistent standards of care between shifts or units. These problems manifest in concrete, serious ways — residents reportedly being left soiled, delays in pain medication and oxygen delivery, alleged mishandling during showers, delayed wound/dressing care, and even pressure ulcer concerns. Several families report what they perceive as neglect or abusive behavior, including rough handling, dismissive attitudes, and situations that left patients scared or helpless. These accounts raise safety and quality-of-care concerns that are more than administrative complaints; they reflect potentially clinically significant lapses.
Management and administrative themes recur in multiple reviews. Some families praise “boots-on-the-ground” responsiveness and quick resolution when management intervenes, and a few reviews explicitly say issues were corrected and the resident felt safer afterward. Conversely, other reviewers accuse management of being defensive, unprofessional, or prioritizing billing and occupancy over appropriate clinical decisions — for example by billing for extra services, ordering unnecessary tests, being reluctant to discharge patients, or treating private-pay versus Medicaid residents differently. Communication problems extend to clinical transparency as well: families report not being included in medical decisions, not seeing doctors, and difficulties obtaining clear explanations about care, medications, or diagnoses.
Facility and environment reports are mixed. Several reviewers describe the building as clean, updated, well-laid-out, and welcoming, with private rooms available and an institutional but acceptable rehab atmosphere. Others, however, report poor hygiene in specific areas (notably allegations of a filthy kitchen), strong odors related to incontinence care, and safety concerns such as improper bed adjustments or noisy televisions at night. Dining and nutrition are also variable: some note clear improvement in nutrition and regular meals provided, while others simply rate food as fair.
Staff behavior and culture appears bifurcated: many accounts celebrate wonderful, kind, and attentive staff who keep families informed and residents engaged, while others recount rude front-desk staff, unhelpful phone responses, or unit managers and directors described as unprofessional. There are multiple specific positive mentions (Tammy, Karen, Dr. E, and some male CNAs) which suggests that care quality may depend heavily on which personnel are on shift. This variability is likely driven by staffing levels, turnover, and possibly uneven training or supervision. Documentation-heavy policies and procedural orientation were also mentioned, which some families saw as thorough oversight and others viewed as bureaucratic deflection.
A notable pattern is the dichotomy between rehabilitation-focused positive experiences and long-term nursing care negatives. Many of the positive reviews come from short-term rehab stays where therapy staff make a visible difference; many of the alarming reports come from longer-term care scenarios or end-of-life care where consistent day-to-day nursing, hygiene, toileting, and medication management are more critical. Adverse medication events were also cited, with at least one report naming a specific drug (Celebrex) causing swelling and other medication concerns prompting canceled prescriptions.
In summary, Elderwood at Lancaster demonstrates capacity to provide excellent therapy and compassionate care when staffed and managed well, but multiple reviewers report serious, recurring problems with basic nursing care, communication, management professionalism, and safety. The overall pattern suggests variability in performance — strong pockets of high-quality care alongside troubling instances of neglect or mismanagement. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s documented therapy strengths and specific praised staff against the reports of inconsistent day-to-day nursing standards and communication failures. When considering this facility, ask specific questions about staffing ratios, incontinence and wound care protocols, medication administration policies, incident reporting and resolution processes, and how the facility ensures continuity of care across shifts; meet and evaluate the frontline staff who would be providing day-to-day care and seek recent references from families of similar residents (short-term rehab vs long-term care) to better predict the likely experience.
