Overall sentiment across the review summaries is mixed-to-concerning, with a clear pattern: Chestnut (or the unit reviewed) consistently receives high marks for rehabilitation services and physical/occupational therapy, and for its attractive grounds and newer buildings, but receives repeated, serious criticism for nursing care, basic caregiving practices, sanitation, communication, and billing/management responsiveness.
Care quality and safety: The rehabilitation teams are repeatedly praised — described as excellent or great — and many reviewers credit therapy with good recovery outcomes. In contrast, nursing and basic personal care show chronic, recurring problems. Multiple reviewers reported neglectful incidents including a preventable pressure sore after surgery, malnutrition and significant weight loss (one person losing 20 pounds), expired consumables, urine on the floor, and unsanitary techniques. There are also allegations that catheters were placed out of convenience and that residents were confined to chairs or wheelchairs for excessive periods (e.g., 23 hours/day). Equipment issues are common: walkers, bedside chairs and bed alarms were delayed or malfunctioning, and at least one reviewer said repairs took many days (walker fixed after 11 days). Those kinds of care and equipment lapses constitute significant safety and quality concerns in several reviews.
Staffing, behavior and communication: Reviews paint a bifurcated staff picture. Some aides, therapists and nurses are described as wonderful, attentive or decent. Yet an equal or greater number of comments cite rude, uncaring, or unresponsive nursing staff and supervisors. There are reports of CNAs not using transfer devices correctly, nurses serving meals without ensuring residents have glasses or dentures, and staff often being too busy or working at other houses. Communication problems recur: inconsistent updates, social worker and director-level neglect reported by families, unreturned phone calls, and conflicting information about who is Director of Nursing (one reviewer specifically states that the long-tenured DON is Tammy Burdick since 2013, not Colleen Tuttle). These inconsistencies suggest uneven management oversight and an unstable or poorly coordinated staffing structure.
Facilities and amenities: Several reviewers note positive physical attributes — well-kept lawns, attractive scenery and newer buildings — and mention that refurbishment is underway. On-site amenities such as a hair salon, manicures, books and a gym (used by therapy) are available, and rooms are reported as cleaned daily. However, interior elements show wear: aged floors and carpeting were noted, along with small shared rooms, uncomfortable beds and climate control issues (heat too high in some rooms). Activities programming appears to have been scaled back due to COVID for some, and other reviewers say activities are geared toward much older residents, indicating the offerings may not meet all resident needs or interests.
Dining and daily living: Dining receives frequent negative commentary; multiple reviewers describe food quality as terrible, with some extreme characterizations like "not fit for human consumption." There are also operational issues — meals delivered without necessary assistive items (glasses, dentures), expired juice boxes, and general lack of adequate hydration offered to residents. A few reviewers do note meal choices and alternates are available, but inconsistency is a recurring theme.
Management, billing and administrative concerns: Administrative issues are prominent in the reviews. Several families reported poor communication from management and the billing department, including an account sent to collections despite prior promises of coverage, unexpected charges, never receiving initial bills, and threats of court action. These are serious and stress-inducing for families and suggest inadequate administrative follow-through and coordination with payers. There are also conflicting reports about director responsiveness — one reviewer names a long-tenured DON and defends them, while others report an unresponsive Director of Nursing and leadership neglect — indicating mixed experiences with management accountability.
Patterns and recommendations: The strongest, most consistent positive pattern is high-quality rehabilitation/therapy and some pleasant physical campus features. The most troubling and frequent negatives are inconsistent and sometimes neglectful nursing care, sanitation and safety lapses, broken or delayed equipment that affects mobility and safety, poor food and hydration practices, staff shortages, inconsistent communication, and problematic billing practices. For prospective residents or families, the facility appears to offer very good therapy and a pleasant environment, but there is a substantial risk that basic nursing care and administrative reliability will be inconsistent. If considering Chestnut, families should: (1) verify staffing levels and turnover in nursing, (2) ask for written assurances and timelines for equipment and repairs, (3) document care plans and visit frequently to monitor nutrition, skin integrity and hygiene, (4) obtain clear, written financial agreements and confirm billing/payment arrangements, and (5) meet therapy and nursing staff directly to evaluate rapport and responsiveness. The reviews indicate that outcomes will likely depend heavily on which staff are on duty and how well management enforces standards; the variability in experiences is the dominant theme.
