Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern due to recurring reports of understaffing, inconsistent medical care, and cleanliness problems. Many reviewers praise individual caregivers, therapy teams, and renovated facilities, describing compassionate staff and effective short-term rehabilitation. At the same time, a substantial portion of reviewers report systemic issues: slow or ignored responses to needs, basic hygiene failures, and medical neglect. These conflicting reports create a polarized picture in which experiences range from "best place ever" and "really helped my family member" to "dreadful" and "severe negligence." The most frequent and consequential theme is chronic understaffing, which reviewers explicitly connect to delayed care, missed treatments, and a general inability to meet residents’ basic needs.
Care quality and clinical concerns are central in many negative accounts. Multiple reviewers described inadequate wound care, delayed blood work, failure to follow physician orders, premature or unsafe discharges that led to rehospitalization, and neglect of acute medical issues. Specific, alarming claims include blood-stained sheets, residents left in feces for extended periods, and bedpan delays — concrete examples that point to lapses in basic nursing care. Conversely, a portion of reviews highlight strong PT/OT performance and nurses who were encouraging and attentive, particularly during short-term rehab stays; that suggests that clinical quality may be uneven across units, shifts, or patient types (short-term rehab vs long-term care).
Staff and culture emerge as another divided area. Many reviewers single out particular aides, therapists, and support staff as compassionate and willing to go "above and beyond," notably during COVID or when family support was not available. Several reviews specifically praise the kitchen head, dietitian, lobby staff, maintenance, and activities team. However, there are repeated and serious accusations of unprofessional CNAs, rude or degrading treatment (including yelling and being treated like a child), alleged favoritism, and even claims about questionable hiring practices and substance issues. Management and leadership are frequently criticized; reviewers cite an unresponsive executive, difficulty scheduling tours, inconsistent information versus the website, and at least one named manager described as unprofessional. These management problems are often linked by reviewers to poor staff morale and high turnover.
Facility condition and cleanliness reports are strongly inconsistent. Many reviewers note a bright, recently renovated environment, a pleasant patio and flowered outdoor dining, and a clean, quiet rehab unit. Others describe the facility as filthy: overflowing trash, fruit flies, rusted equipment, and unsanitary bathrooms with excrement on fixtures and floors. Several reviewers reference inspector concerns, and at least one reported that the facility felt unhealthy and demoralizing. This split suggests variability in maintenance and housekeeping performance across time, units, or shifts; guests should expect that cleanliness reports may be highly dependent on when the reviewer visited or what unit they experienced.
Dining and activities receive similarly mixed feedback. The Activities Department is widely praised for engaging programs (music, crafts, outings, gender-specific activities like bocce and horseshoes), and some families report residents enjoyed social areas and outdoor dining. Dining gets both praise and criticism: some reviewers called the food excellent or accommodating to special diets, while others called meals bland, incorrect, or even "disgusting." Weekend staffing issues causing meal delays, and occasional incorrect orders are recurring complaints. The positive accounts around activities and therapy contrast with the service and food inconsistencies that families reported.
Communication, discharge planning, and administrative processes are frequent pain points. Families reported poor communication from medical staff, inconsistent updates, problems with discharge planning (including premature discharges), and difficulty coordinating tours or admissions (e.g., beds unavailable after application). Several reviewers said they had to advocate daily to get basic treatments administered. Some relatives felt the facility treated residents like a number and did not follow policies consistently.
Notable patterns and red flags: understaffing is the single most consistent negative theme and appears to be a root cause for many other problems (delays, hygiene lapses, poor communication). Reports of safety incidents (falls, rehospitalizations), severe neglect (left in feces, blood-stained sheets), and management dysfunction are serious red flags and cited repeatedly enough to warrant caution. At the same time, there is a clear cluster of positive, specific praise centered on therapy staff, activities, and certain compassionate caregivers, indicating pockets of strong practice.
In summary, the reviews portray Elderwood at Liverpool as a facility with clear strengths—especially in therapy/rehab for many residents, an active activities program, some dedicated and compassionate staff, and parts of the building that are newly renovated and pleasant. However, repeated and severe concerns—particularly chronic understaffing, inconsistent cleanliness and hygiene, lapses in medical care, communication failures, and reported management problems—create significant risk. Prospective residents and families should treat the facility as one with mixed outcomes: it can provide excellent short-term rehab and compassionate individual caregivers, but there is credible evidence of systemic issues that may affect safety and consistent quality of care. Families should investigate current staffing ratios, infection-control and housekeeping records, recent inspection reports, wound-care and discharge protocols, and ask for specific examples of how management addresses complaints before making placement decisions.
