Overall sentiment in the reviews for Central Park Rehabilitation and Nursing Center is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise particular staff members, the rehab program, and aspects of the facility and environment, while an equally strong set of reviews describe serious neglect, safety lapses, and management failures. The pattern across reviews is one of notable variability — many families report excellent, compassionate care and successful rehab outcomes, but a significant portion recount neglectful incidents, unsanitary conditions, and broken processes that raised urgent safety and legal concerns.
Care quality and staffing: Care experiences range from “top-notch” and “caring” to “horrible” and “unsafe.” Multiple reviews single out individual staff (including named social workers and therapists) as exceptional advocates who provide excellent communication and patient-centered care. Rehab and physical therapy are repeatedly praised — several reviewers reported meaningful recovery progress and positive interactions with therapists. At the same time, numerous accounts describe understaffing, especially nights and weekends, with long waits for assistance, unanswered call bells, and CNAs or nurses who were distracted by phones or not present. Serious neglect incidents were reported repeatedly: residents left in soiled diapers for hours, dirty bedding left in rooms, failure to bathe or change residents for days, and people left sitting in soiled clothing. Those incidents are often accompanied by descriptions of staff being rude, dismissive, or verbally abusive.
Safety and clinical concerns: Multiple reviewers raised safety issues that go beyond poor service to potentially dangerous clinical lapses. Reports include falls from beds (with missing bed rails or broken beds), bruises, colostomy management errors, missing or unknown medications, and allegations of bedsores and resulting infections. Several reviewers described rapid readmissions to hospitals within hours of admission to Central Park, implying inadequate monitoring or delayed medical attention. Infection control and COVID management were criticized: reviewers reported repeated quarantine holds, claimed clock-resetting to extend holds, denial of visitors, and inconsistent testing outcomes. Some reviewers explicitly stated they believed the facility treated residents like prisoners during COVID holds. Additionally, one reviewer noted the lack of an on-site doctor and the absence of an AED defibrillator, raising concerns about lifesaving readiness.
Sanitation, laundry, and environmental issues: There is a stark contradiction in the facility’s cleanliness reports. Numerous reviewers praise the facility as very clean, with updated rooms and a welcoming atmosphere; conversely, a large number of reviews describe severe sanitation problems — human feces odor, dirty and stained sheets and pillows, soiled clothing left for days, dirty wheelchairs, and contaminated bathrooms. Laundry system failures are frequently cited as a persistent problem, with some reviewers sharing photos and reporting ammonia smells and stained linens. These sanitation complaints are often paired with allegations that management failed to respond adequately when concerns were raised.
Administration, communication, and billing: Management and administrative practices appear to be a major pain point for many families. Several reviewers complained about poor communication, unreturned calls, lack of follow-up, and inconsistent or contradictory statements from administrators and risk managers. There are multiple complaints about discharge planning failures and aftercare coordination (difficulty arranging home nursing or therapy, abrupt or disputed discharges). Financial transparency is another recurring theme: reviewers reported high daily charges, surprise final bills (one cited nearly $30k), insurance confusion, and allegations of fraudulent billing. A few reviews recommended contacting the local Long Term Care Ombudsman Program for assistance, reflecting serious family-level escalation.
Meals, activities, and amenities: Opinions about dining and activities are mixed. Many residents and families enjoyed meals, citing substantial and varied offerings and specific favorites (e.g., tuna noodle casserole). Others described meals as unappetizing, substitutions that triggered allergies, or insufficient puree options. Activity programming receives positive mentions (art classes, music time, live entertainment, happy hour) and contributes to a homelike environment for some residents. The physical layout and room characteristics likewise drew polarized feedback: some reviewers praised spacious semi-private rooms, personalization, and accessible communal spaces, while others noted shared bathrooms, missing chairs, or poorly furnished rooms after moves.
Variability by unit/floor and staff: Several reviews point to inconsistent standards between floors or shifts. Some floors (e.g., a frequently-cited “4th floor”) were described as cheerful, clean, and caring, while others (often the “3rd floor” or dementia units) attracted repeated complaints of neglect and poor supervision. This intra-facility variability suggests that resident experience can be highly dependent on which staff team and unit the resident is assigned to. Reviewers also commonly contrast “dedicated” individual CNAs/LPNs with “poor leadership” and ineffective coworkers — praising hands-on caregivers while blaming systemic management failings.
Serious allegations and legal/ethical concerns: Several reviews describe events that families considered abusive or criminal: withholding blankets during procedures, removal of property, theft from rooms, staff smoking pot on breaks, and intentional attempts to lengthen quarantine holds. There are mentions of bedsores, septic infections, and even death connected to clinical issues. Some reviewers stated intentions to file formal complaints or contact authorities; others reported litigation or estate disputes. These are severe allegations and, if accurate, warrant regulatory attention.
Notable strengths to verify: Despite the substantial negative feedback, the facility has consistent praise in some areas that prospective families may want to verify: a strong rehab team, several standout staff members (notably the social worker Taylor and some therapists), updated rooms in parts of the building, active programming, and some reviewers’ claims of excellent wound care and rapid recovery back to independent living. One reviewer noted high Medicare long-term care scores, which could be investigated further.
Overall assessment and patterns: The reviews paint a picture of a facility with meaningful strengths (rehab, some highly committed staff, activities, and certain well-run units) but also recurring and serious weaknesses (neglect, sanitation failures, safety incidents, inconsistent staffing, communication breakdowns, and billing/administrative problems). The most consistent red flags are: unattended soiled residents, long response times to calls for help, inconsistent hygiene/laundry practices, and serious administrative lapses around discharges and billing. Positives are concentrated around specific staff members and the rehab team, while negatives are often systemic or managerial in origin.
For families considering Central Park Rehabilitation and Nursing Center: review-level recommendations derived from the pattern of comments include (based on reviewer reports): ask for updated staffing ratios by unit and night/weekend coverage; request infection control and inspection records; tour the exact unit where your loved one would be placed and check room linens and cleanliness; meet the social worker and rehab team you will be dealing with; get discharge plans and billing estimates in writing; inquire about the presence of an on-site physician and emergency equipment (AED); and check with your local Long Term Care Ombudsman or state survey reports for complaints and citations. The facility appears capable of providing excellent rehabilitation and compassionate care for some residents, but multiple reviewers report lapses that can pose immediate safety and health risks — making thorough, specific pre-admission vetting essential.
