Overall impression: The reviews for Penfield Place are highly polarized, producing a mixed but distinct pattern. Many reviewers report outstanding short-term rehabilitation experiences: strong, professional PT/OT teams, individualized therapy plans, bright renovated rehab wings, private rooms, and successful returns home. At the same time, a significant number of reviews cite serious problems—most commonly facility condition, inconsistent staffing, lapses in basic nursing care, and troubling clinical outcomes (including infections and missed medications). The result is a facility that appears to deliver excellent therapy and compassionate care in many cases but also shows variability that has led to severe negative outcomes for some families.
Care quality and staff: The dominant positive theme is the presence of caring, attentive clinical and caregiving staff. Multiple reviewers praise nurses, CNAs, therapists, and specific social work staff for compassion, communication, and person-centered care. Staff are often described as knowing residents by name, encouraging independence, and focusing on dignity. Several reviews single out long-tenured personnel and named individuals (Meghan, Sara, Megan) as exceptional. Conversely, inconsistency in staff quality is a clear pattern: while some shifts and staff members are lauded, other reviewers report rude, indifferent, or lazy staff. Nighttime care appears to be a recurrent weak point—ignored call bells, slow responses, and reports of residents left wet or in pain overnight suggest staffing shortages or supervisory gaps during off-hours.
Therapy and rehab outcomes: A frequent and emphatic positive motif is the high quality of rehabilitation services. Many families describe Penfield Place as an excellent rehab option: skilled therapists, progress toward goals, increased activity levels, and prompt, visible improvements that lead to safe discharges home. The rehab wing is repeatedly described as bright, renovated, and conducive to recovery. However, there are counterexamples where reviewers felt the facility did not prioritize rehabilitation sufficiently; these appear less common but important, particularly when therapy expectations are not met.
Facilities and cleanliness: Reviews conflict strongly on the physical environment. Numerous accounts praise clean, well-kept areas, updated rooms in the rehab wing, and pleasant outdoor spaces. In direct contrast, many other reviews describe an old, run-down facility with dark rooms, worn furniture, dirty rugs, pervasive urine odor, and crowded, dingy hallways. This dichotomy suggests variability across wings, rooms, or periods of time—some parts of the building may be renovated and well-maintained while others show neglect. Potential visitors should verify the specific wing or room they will use and tour at different times of day.
Dining and nutrition: Dining is another divisive area. Several reviewers enjoyed delicious meals and noted dietary accommodations, while an equally strong group criticized processed, unappetizing food and failures to respect dietary restrictions—one reviewer even reported a choking hazard and meals that were not corrected after issues were raised. Weigh-loss and poor culinary experiences are mentioned alongside reports of good food, indicating inconsistency or variable kitchen oversight.
Safety, clinical concerns, and communication: The most serious recurring negative themes are clinical safety lapses and poor communication in select cases. Reports range from inadequate incontinence care and poor hygiene to missed medications and under-treatment of pain. Several reviewers recounted escalation of wounds to cellulitis and subsequent sepsis requiring hospitalization and ICU care; families then reported lack of follow-up or poor handoffs. Administrative or social work miscommunication and, in a few cases, unprofessional conduct were cited. These are red flags that warrant careful inquiry for anyone considering Penfield Place, especially for long-term placement or residents with complex medical needs.
Management, administration, and cost: Opinions about administration vary. Positive reviews note helpful business office staff, smooth transitions, and proactive social work outreach (including guidance and referrals). Negative reviews describe evasive or unhelpful administrators, misinformation around medical proxies or vaccinations, and incomplete Medicaid paperwork. Cost was explicitly criticized by at least one reviewer (noting rates above $600/day) who felt the price was not justified by the inconsistent quality of care.
Activities and amenities: Many reviewers appreciated on-site activities—bingo, live music performances (Beatles song set mentioned), socialization in the dining room, and additional services like laundry, hairdressing, and transportation. Visiting hours are described as generous, and there is on-site medical coverage and clergy visits, which some families valued highly.
Patterns and takeaways: The strongest pattern is variability. When Penfield Place is at its best—well-staffed shifts, engaged social workers, strong therapy teams, and the renovated rehab wing—families report exemplary, dignified care and excellent rehab outcomes. When staffing is thin (often nights), supervision breaks down, or administrative miscommunication occurs, families report neglect, poor hygiene, missed meds, and even serious medical complications. Physical conditions also vary across the property: some areas are renovated and clean, while others are described as old, smelly, and in need of overhaul.
Practical recommendations based on reviews: Prospective residents or family members should (1) tour the specific wing and room they would occupy, ideally at different times (including evenings/nights) to gauge night staffing and noise; (2) ask directly about current staffing ratios, night coverage, and nurse supervisor availability; (3) confirm the names and schedules of therapists if rehab is the goal, and request to see therapy goal-tracking practices; (4) inquire about nutrition management and how dietary restrictions and choking risks are handled; (5) verify billing and Medicaid paperwork processes before placement; and (6) request recent inspection reports and any incident follow-up records. If placing a medically complex or high-dependency loved one, consider whether the facility’s variable reports on clinical vigilance and overnight care meet your safety requirements.
Bottom line: Penfield Place appears capable of delivering excellent, compassionate short-term rehabilitation and has many staff who are praised for going above and beyond. However, significant, repeated reports of facility odor and condition issues, inconsistent staff behavior, overnight neglect, missed medications, and serious clinical lapses mean families should proceed with caution—especially for long-term placements or residents with high medical needs. Verify current conditions, staffing, and paperwork processes in person and prioritize direct observation during different shifts before making a placement decision.
