The reviews of Troy Center present a starkly polarized picture: many reviewers praise the rehabilitation services and identify individual staff members as compassionate and effective, while a large, vocal group describes pervasive neglect, unsanitary conditions, safety incidents, and poor management. Across the dataset the single most consistent positive theme is that the therapy/rehab program (PT/OT) is generally strong — several reviewers attribute successful short-term recoveries and timely discharges to the therapy team. Multiple reviews call out individual employees and departments by name (e.g., Kate, Kassandra, Laura, Krystal) as highly engaged, hands-on, and beneficial to residents’ recovery and quality of life. A subset of reviewers describe a family-like atmosphere, a responsive front desk, and staff who are informative and empathetic, especially around rehabilitation goals.
Counterbalancing those positives are numerous, detailed complaints about basic nursing care, safety, cleanliness, and facility condition. Many reviewers report extremely long call-light response times (often quoted at 15+ minutes), unanswered phone calls, ignored emails, and a lack of response to room requests. There are repeated accounts of residents being left in soiled clothing or urine, delayed changes and bathing (some stating residents went weeks without showers), and serious neglect outcomes including bedsores, dehydration, and at least one incident serious enough to prompt a 911 call and welfare checks by police. Medication handling is another concern — reviews reference medication errors or pain medications being delayed. Several reviewers tied these failures to chronic understaffing, weekend shortages, and chaotic scheduling practices.
Facility maintenance and sanitation show up as another major theme. Multiple reviews report persistent urine smells, feces in bathrooms, visible dirt, pests (bugs and mice), roof leaks with buckets/garbage cans in halls, and general dilapidation such as popping tiles and funky carpeting. These conditions are frequently linked by reviewers to poor cleaning practices and inattentive housekeeping. Coupled with allegations of staff distracted by phones, rough handling of residents during transfers or linen changes, and even claims that some staff appeared impaired or acted inappropriately, the environment is described by many as unsafe and unsanitary.
Management and communications receive heavy criticism. Reviewers describe hung-up phone calls, unanswered complaints, automated or formulaic responses to reviews, and a perception that corporate priorities or budgets override patient care. There are multiple assertions of mishandled personal belongings (examples include orthotics and expensive shoes discarded or lost without notice), and some reviewers allege falsified positive reviews or even bribery to secure good reviews. A few reviews mention prior facility closures or re-openings under different names, raising regulatory trust concerns. Several reviewers explicitly urged outside investigation (NYSDOH filings, calls for unannounced site visits) or suggested the facility should be shut down based on observed conditions.
Dining and daily living services are another area with mixed feedback but more negative than positive: food quality is frequently described as poor, bland, late, or served cold, and some families chose to bring outside food. Activities have been reported as improving under new leadership (specifically Laura), indicating some positive operational changes in engagement programming, but these gains appear isolated against broader systemic problems.
Notable patterns: 1) a repeated split between a strong therapy department and inconsistent/poor nursing care; 2) frequent reports of understaffing leading to delays and neglect; 3) sanitation and physical plant issues that suggest long-term maintenance deficits; and 4) management communication failures combined with allegations of deceptive review practices. Some reviewers explicitly recommend avoiding the facility and call for regulatory action, while others say the facility provided excellent rehab and caring staff for their loved ones.
In conclusion, the reviews depict a facility with valuable clinical strengths (notably in rehabilitation therapy and certain dedicated staff) overshadowed for many reviewers by fundamental failures in nursing care, cleanliness, safety, and management responsiveness. The pattern suggests that families considering Troy Center should weigh the strong rehabilitation record and reported standout staff against numerous reports of neglect, sanitation problems, and administrative dysfunction. For prospective residents and families, the reviews indicate the importance of direct, recent inspection of the unit where care would be delivered, asking specific questions about nurse staffing levels and call-light response times, verifying how personal belongings are handled at intake, and requesting recent inspection or complaint histories. For regulators or advocates, the reviews contain multiple triggers (welfare checks, allegations of harm, sanitation and pest reports, and claims of medication errors) that warrant follow-up and possible unannounced inspection. For the facility, reviewers point to clear priorities for corrective action: bolster nursing staffing and supervision, enforce cleanliness and maintenance standards, improve communications and complaint handling, safeguard personal property, and address any alleged improper review/response practices.
