Overall sentiment in the reviews for Oneida Health Rehabilitation & Extended Care is sharply divided, producing a mixed but predominantly negative pattern with pockets of strongly positive experiences. Multiple reviewers praise individual nurses, ventilator unit staff, and certain front-line employees as compassionate, professional, and going beyond expectations. These positive reports also highlight a clean facility, pleasant visitation policies, comforting animal visits (cats and birds), timely cafeteria meals, and instances of good end-of-life care. Several families report gratitude for staff who provided humane, pain-free, and dignified care in terminal situations and note improvements or consistently strong performance from particular employees and teams.
Counterbalancing those positive reports are numerous and serious allegations of clinical neglect and systemic failures. High-severity concerns appear repeatedly: alleged mismanagement of ventilators and oxygen (including oxygen saturations reportedly in the 70s while on ventilatory support and oxygen left disconnected for hours), delayed or absent response to respiratory distress and pneumonia, and symptoms dismissed as anxiety rather than treated. Reviewers describe incidents of rough physical handling that caused head injuries, unexplained bruises and gashes, and at least one death that families attribute to delayed or inadequate care. Reports also include stage 2 pressure ulcers, residents left incontinent for many hours, and long periods in wheelchairs after meals — all indicating breakdowns in basic nursing care and monitoring.
Operational and staffing issues are a recurring theme. Many reviewers describe understaffing, slow or absent responses to call bells and alarms, and staff who appear disengaged or 'here for a paycheck.' These staffing problems are said to lead to unattended needs, lack of personal care (long waits for showers and bathroom assistance), missed or incorrect medications, and inadequate or misapplied therapy. Rehab/therapy experiences are inconsistent: some residents are reported to have benefited, while others are described as idle, stagnating, or receiving unsafe/ineffective therapy. Several families reported lost personal items (clothing, walkers) and a chaotic discharge process with poor communication about care decisions and next steps.
Communication and administrative responsiveness are other major concerns. Multiple reviewers report difficulty reaching administration, poor family updates, unclear care plans, and instances where families felt the facility was not accountable for mistakes or incidents. There are mentions of extended quarantines without clear updates, uncertainty about patient phone access, and a desire for a patient portal or more transparent, timely information. A small number of reviewers also allege monetary motives or insurance exploitation, and cite the facility’s low Medicare/Medicaid rating and formal complaints or reports to state authorities; a few reviews mention escalation to the Chief Medical Officer or even potential legal action.
Facility atmosphere and nonclinical services show mixed feedback. While several families praise the cleanliness, lack of odors, pleasant cafeteria, friendly dining staff, and the comfort of animal visits and outdoor spaces, others noted odors upon arrival, inconsistent engagement in activities, and few meaningful social/activity options. Visitation policies are generally seen as visitor-friendly in positive reviews, while some families expressed frustration over limited communication during quarantine periods. The presence of standout staff members is a consistent silver lining; individual employees are repeatedly singled out for kindness, competence, and exceptional care.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with significant variability: some staff and services perform at a high, compassionate standard, while others demonstrate neglect, poor clinical judgment, and administrative failures. The most serious and recurrent red flags are clinical neglect around respiratory/ventilator care, delayed responses leading to deterioration, incontinence and pressure wound care failures, medication errors, rough handling, and inaccessible or unresponsive administration. Prospective families should be aware of this polarized pattern, verify current staffing levels and clinical protocols (especially for ventilator or high-acuity care), ask about infection-control and quarantine policies, request how communication and incident escalation are handled, and, where possible, speak with multiple families and inspect the unit in person to assess consistency of care. The presence of both strongly positive and strongly negative experiences suggests that resident outcomes may depend heavily on specific staff members and shifts, so ongoing monitoring and clear, documented communication expectations are advisable if choosing this facility.
