Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized, with a clear split between reviewers praising aspects of the facility (compassionate staff, strong rehab/therapy, social activities, and helpful administration) and reviewers reporting severe safety, neglect, and misconduct issues. Positive comments emphasize meaningful social engagement, rehabilitation success stories, and specific staff or administrators who advocates for residents. Negative comments include a range of serious allegations—some involving criminal conduct or safety risks—that significantly affect perceptions of care quality and trust.
Care quality: Reviews present a mixed picture. Several families praise the facility's rehabilitation and therapy programs and describe meaningful health monitoring and improvement. At the same time, a significant number of reviews describe neglectful care: missed or ignored medication orders, delayed or denied treatments (for example, nebulizer treatments), poor hygiene (unbathed residents, excrement, open sores), and incidents that resulted in hospital transfers. Multiple reviewers reported call bells being ignored or intentionally disabled, contributing to delayed responses and adverse outcomes. These recurring complaints about basic care delivery suggest inconsistent standards and potential lapses in oversight.
Staff and safety: Staff descriptions range from deeply compassionate and responsive to allegedly violent or negligent. Many reviewers specifically call out caring CNAs, helpful nurses, and a supportive social worker; several also singled out administrator Elena Vega-Castro for helpfulness and prompt communication. However, an alarming subset of reviews alleges serious safety incidents: assault by a CNA against a resident or reviewer, violent behavior and threats toward visitors and residents, reports of an unattended dementia patient and an attempted assault, theft of personal belongings, and one reviewer alleging in-house drug manufacturing. Police involvement and formal reports were mentioned in a number of cases. Because these are reviewer allegations, they should be treated as serious red flags requiring verification, but their recurrence across reviews indicates substantial concerns about staff conduct, supervision, and security procedures.
Facilities and amenities: Some reviewers report a clean environment and enjoyable amenities like crafts and coffee greetings at the door. Conversely, other reviewers describe an old, poorly maintained building with rooms 'falling apart,' shared and inadequate bathroom arrangements, and lack of basic comforts (reports of no spring water). Food quality elicited mixed feedback—some positive remarks about good food and rehab meals contrast with complaints about poor meals (e.g., a tuna sandwich complaint), late meals, and feeding delays. These mixed accounts suggest variability in facility upkeep and consistency of service.
Management, communication, and processes: Several reviewers praise monthly updates, quick responses to questions, and problem resolution from administration. Others report unresponsive management, miscommunication during admissions/applications, and failure to act on serious incidents. That dichotomy suggests management practices may be inconsistent or dependent on individual staff members; some families found strong advocacy and clear communication, while others experienced a lack of accountability and poor follow-through.
Activities and social environment: Positive reviews consistently highlight socialization benefits: bingo, live music, crafts, day-service programs, and staff who help residents build friendships. Multiple reviewers credited these programs with improving quality of life for residents, particularly those with Alzheimer's or dementia. These strengths are a meaningful positive for prospective residents seeking social engagement and respite for family caregivers.
Patterns and implications: The most significant pattern is stark inconsistency. Positive accounts frequently reference the same strong elements—a supportive social worker, helpful administrator, engaged therapy team, and enjoyable activities—whereas negative accounts repeatedly describe neglect, theft, safety incidents, and severe staff misconduct. The coexistence of both types of reviews suggests variability in care depending on shift, staff present, or unit; it also raises concerns about oversight, staffing levels, and security controls. Reports of criminal behavior, police involvement, and mandated reporting imply that some complaints have been escalated beyond informal family dissatisfaction.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: Given the breadth and severity of negative allegations alongside notable positive experiences, prospective families should conduct thorough, in-person evaluations. Recommended steps include touring the facility at various times/shifts, asking about staffing ratios, incident reports, background checks, security measures, medication administration processes, and how the facility handles allegations of abuse or theft. Request recent inspection reports, ask to speak with current residents' family members or advocates, and verify claims about rehabilitation outcomes and social programming. If considering placement, insist on clear written policies for monitoring dementia patients, response times for call bells, and protocols for handling missing items or criminal allegations.
In summary, Plattsburgh Rehabilitation & Nursing Center elicits both strong praise and serious concern. Families who reported good outcomes and positive interactions point to real strengths in therapy, activities, and individual staff members. However, multiple reviews describe neglect, safety breaches, theft, and alleged criminal behavior that are serious and recurring enough to warrant careful scrutiny. The decision to use this facility should be made only after thorough, targeted inquiries and verification of safety practices and oversight.
