The reviews for Sodus Rehabilitation and Nursing Center present a mixed but detailed picture, with strong praise for the compassion and bedside manner of many staff members counterbalanced by serious operational and safety concerns in other reports. Several reviewers emphasize the facility’s strengths: many nurses and caregivers are described as loving, compassionate, and knowledgeable; hospice care and end-of-life support are repeatedly praised for being kind and honest; and social work and communication were supportive in multiple accounts. Multiple reviewers also praise the physical environment — the facility is called immaculate, the grounds and landscaping are well maintained, and features such as birdhouses and wildflower gardens contribute to a pleasant rural setting. Some reviews specifically note that residents appear healthy and thriving and that new administration has been turning the place around, suggesting recent managerial improvements in some areas.
At the same time, there are notable, recurring concerns that potential residents and families should consider. Several reviewers describe past short-staffing and overwork issues that affected care, and some reports say staff quality is inconsistent — with “some nurses are great” paired with accounts of unhelpful or mean staff. More serious allegations include neglect (bed sores), delayed hospital transfers, and failures to arrange medical care, sometimes coinciding with adverse outcomes. Hygiene problems are cited (urine exposure, rashes), and one review alleges staff indoor smoking. These safety and neglect-related complaints are significant because they contrast sharply with other reviewers’ experiences of exemplary care and suggest variability in day-to-day operations and oversight.
Billing, administration, and management practices are another prominent theme. Multiple reviews report pressure to pay the full monthly cost up front before admission and ongoing billing disputes after the fact. Several reviewers say refunds or overage reimbursements were promised repeatedly but never delivered, indicating persistent problems in financial administration and follow-through. Conversely, some reviewers credit new management or a new administrator with improving the facility, noting that the place has been “turned around” and that residents are happier under current leadership. This creates a pattern in which historical problems may be improving but financial and managerial issues still leave families wary.
Dining and ancillary services receive mixed feedback. Some reviews call the food excellent and praise the dining experience, while others complain that the kitchen staff are not good and that food is horrible. Rooms and capacity are also inconsistent in reports: the facility is described as immaculate overall, yet a few reviewers mention overcrowded rooms. Activities and outdoor amenities are positively noted (birdhouses, gardens), which suggests engagement opportunities when staffing and programming are functioning well.
Communication and public perception are split across reviews. Several families report responsive communication and heartfelt gratitude for the care their loved ones received. Other reviewers cite poor communication, a negative attitude toward patients, and even criticism that a reporter or negative publicity may be unfair. Some accounts include a COVID diagnosis and subsequent transfer or care handling that families felt was inadequate, adding to concerns about emergency response and infection control practices.
Overall, the reviews indicate that Sodus Rehabilitation and Nursing Center can and does provide compassionate, high-quality care for many residents — particularly in hospice and end-of-life situations — and that physical facilities and grounds are strengths. However, the facility also shows patterns of inconsistent staffing, serious administrative issues around billing, and troubling reports of neglect and hygiene lapses in some cases. There is evidence that new management may be addressing historical problems, but the coexistence of strong positive experiences and severe negative incidents suggests variability in care quality and administrative reliability. Families should weigh the praised elements (compassionate staff, clean grounds, good hospice care) against the risks highlighted (billing disputes, inconsistent staffing, reported neglect) and consider visiting, asking for detailed billing policies, reviewing staffing levels, and verifying how the facility handles transfers and acute medical events before making placement decisions.
