Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed: many families and residents report excellent clinical and rehabilitative care and compassionate front-line staff, while a significant and vocal set of reviewers describe serious problems with hygiene, staffing, communication, and management. The most consistent positive theme is the strength of the caregiving and therapy teams—numerous accounts specifically praise nurses, rehabilitation therapists (PT/OT/Speech), and ancillary staff (transporters, radiology, maintenance). Several reviewers credited the facility with meaningful recovery progress, helpful discharge planning when social services are engaged, and an active recreation program that families found valuable. Multiple posts highlight accommodating kitchen/dietary staff, convenient location for Bronx/Riverdale families, and positive effects from visible new management or particular staff members who went above and beyond.
Care quality shows a clear split. Positive reports emphasize attentive nursing, 24/7 coverage when present, strong rehab outcomes, and family-friendly communication (FaceTime, prompt updates). Negative reports allege serious lapses: bedsores, fungal infections, residents left soaking wet, medication delays, and the perception of minimal physician involvement. Several reviewers specifically said doctors did not come to see patients as needed. The negative narratives often tie directly to understaffing—families report overworked, underpaid staff with unsustainable workloads that they believe compromise safety and quality. Many reviewers temper praise for caring staff with the observation that those same staff are stretched so thin that consistency suffers.
Staffing and staff behavior are central themes. While many reviews praise individual caregivers as compassionate and dedicated, recurring complaints describe staff distracted by phone use, indifferent or apathetic attitudes, and poor training for dementia or other complex needs. Multiple accounts call out social workers as either “proactive and wonderful” or “unresponsive and unreliable,” illustrating variable performance within the same department. Several reviews recount rude, unhelpful, or defensive behavior from administrative leadership and front-desk personnel. A few reports mention inappropriate or discriminatory comments by staff (for example weight-related remarks), prompting calls for patient-centered care training and policies prohibiting discriminatory language.
Facility condition and infection control are contested. A large portion of reviewers describe the center as clean, odor-free, and well-maintained — even “immaculate” — and praise visible safety measures during the pandemic. Contrasting posts, however, describe persistent urine/feces odor, roaches, no hot water, cracked sinks, very hot rooms, and overcrowded multi-bed rooms. Several reviewers mention severe sanitation lapses on specific floors (especially dementia or higher acuity units). Because these reports are inconsistent, it appears cleanliness and maintenance may vary by unit, shift, or period of management.
Rehabilitation and activities are among the facility's strongest, most consistent positives. Many families singled out the rehab department and recreation programming — daily activities, birthday celebrations, and a well-run recreation center — as highlights that supported recovery and quality of life. Kitchen staff also received repeated praise for accommodating preferences and dietary needs. Conversely, some reviewers stated that activities were lacking or not posted, underlining inconsistent implementation across units.
Safety, property, and incident handling are frequent concerns. Several reviewers reported lost or stolen items (shoes, clothing, personal effects) and said there was no effective lost-and-found or satisfactory reimbursement. There are also reports of insufficient incident reporting or delayed/absent documentation when adverse events (transfers to ER, neglect allegations) occurred. A number of reviewers have escalated concerns to external regulators or indicated intentions to contact health departments and accreditation bodies, reflecting the seriousness of specific allegations.
Management, transparency, and follow-through show divergent experiences. Some reviewers praise new management, name specific administrators positively, and say communication and responsiveness improved. Others report hard-to-reach leadership, rude administrators, refusal to accommodate family requests, and lack of planning documentation or treatment papers. This variability suggests that administrative responsiveness and leadership culture may fluctuate over time or across teams.
What to take away: the facility clearly has substantial strengths — notably an effective rehab program, committed direct-care staff, active recreation programming, and many reports of clean, well-run units. However, there are recurring, significant red flags that families should not ignore: chronic understaffing, inconsistent personal care (bathing, hygiene), hygiene/odor problems on some units, reports of property loss/theft, and inconsistent social work and administrative responsiveness. Because the experiences vary widely, prospective residents and families should (1) visit multiple times and ask specifically about staffing ratios, dementia care training, and physician rounds; (2) request and review the unit’s recent inspection reports and incident logs; (3) inventory and photograph belongings on admission; (4) confirm bathing and toileting schedules and request written care plans; and (5) get names of point people in social services and administration for follow-up. These steps can help families maximize the facility’s strengths while guarding against the service gaps that others have reported.
