Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed, with a clear pattern: Westhampton Care Center is repeatedly praised for its rehabilitation services, many compassionate individual staff members, and attractive common spaces, while also receiving numerous and serious complaints about understaffing, inconsistent care, and safety/quality lapses. Multiple reviewers describe outstanding outcomes from PT/OT and specific staff who were attentive, encouraging, and clinically effective; these positive experiences are especially concentrated in the dedicated rehab unit (often referenced as Unit 5). Across many accounts, therapy teams and several named nurses and aides receive high marks for restoring mobility, managing pain well on some shifts, and providing personalized attention that families deeply appreciated.
However, an equally strong thread of concern runs through the reviews. The facility appears to suffer from chronic staffing shortages and high turnover, which reviewers connect to long call-bell response times, missed basic care (delays in bathroom assistance, ice water, toileting), and inconsistent quality from shift to shift. Several reviews describe grave safety and clinical incidents: patients reportedly left in bathrooms or chairs for long periods, missed wound checks, medication mistakes (wrong dosages), delayed pain medication adjustments, urinary tract infections, pressure injuries (including a stage 4 bedsore account), and even instances leading to hospital transfer. There are multiple alarming reports of falls, bruises, a broken hip, and wandering incidents—some reviewers frame these as near-abuse or neglect situations. These safety lapses are often tied back to insufficient staffing levels (examples include statements like one LPN covering many patients) and lapses in supervision.
Cleanliness and facility condition are described in contradictory terms. A large number of reviewers praise the building as bright, airy, well-laid-out, and immaculately clean with pleasant courtyards, well-kept gardens, and comfortable common areas. Many speak positively about housekeeping and the exterior grounds. In contrast, other reviewers report dirty rooms or bathrooms, mold/mildew on ceilings, dust accumulation, hair in drains, and unclean hallways—some explicitly connecting these problems to recent changes or ongoing remodeling and alleging a decline under new ownership. These polarized accounts suggest variability by unit, time, or shift: some parts of the campus (notably the rehab/day rooms) are consistently praised while other wings, particularly dementia or longer-term care units, attract more negative cleanliness and maintenance reports.
Dining and nutrition also receive mixed feedback. Several families and residents compliment tasty meals, generous portions, and a responsive dietician who accommodated picky eaters. Conversely, a notable number of reviews complain about cold, processed, or poor-quality food and express disappointment with menu choices. These divergent experiences imply inconsistency in meal execution or differing expectations between short-term rehab stays and longer-term residents.
Staffing culture and interpersonal care are major themes. Many reviews celebrate individual staff who are warm, professional, and go above and beyond—nurses, aides, receptionists, and recreation therapists are frequently named and thanked. Recreation programming, activity staff, and social engagement opportunities (music, Bingo, library, outings, haircuts) earn strong positive marks and are seen as valuable for resident morale. Yet multiple reviews allege disrespectful or rough treatment by certain aides, abrupt or demeaning behavior, and inadequate supervision of junior staff. Families report having to advocate actively for their loved ones, with some saying improvements occurred only after they intervened. Several reviews also request practical improvements—whiteboards in rooms to identify caregivers and roles, larger ID badges, clearer social worker contact info, and more visitor seating—that point to communication and organizational gaps.
Administrative and systems issues appear repeatedly. Some reviewers commend proactive management and clear communication, while others describe poor discharge planning, pressure for Medicaid-driven discharges, billing disputes, debt-collection threats, and social workers who do not return calls. A few reports also recount medication or treatment changes made without family consent and rare but serious claims of unethical or abusive conduct. COVID outbreaks and infection-control concerns are raised in certain reviews, including mentions of multiple COVID patients on-site at once and transmission worries.
Patterns and notable divides: the strongest and most consistent praise centers on the rehab/therapy experience and many individual caregivers; the most serious recurring concerns involve staffing shortages leading to safety and care-quality failures in long-term and memory-care areas. The divergence in reviewer experiences suggests meaningful variability by unit, time period, and shift—many families report exceptional, even life-changing rehabilitation, while others describe traumatic neglect and clinical harm.
For prospective families or partners, these reviews recommend a nuanced approach: visit multiple units (including evenings and weekends), ask about current staffing ratios and turnover, observe mealtime and common-area cleanliness, meet therapy staff if rehab is the goal, inquire about dementia-unit staffing and supervision, confirm medication and wound-care protocols, and clarify billing/discharge procedures and social-work responsiveness. The facility offers clear strengths—robust rehab, many compassionate individuals, attractive grounds, and active programming—but also documented operational weaknesses that have led to serious resident-safety complaints. Those considering Westhampton should weigh the documented successes in rehabilitation and select units against the reports of inconsistent care and take steps (e.g., direct questions, written plans, clear points of contact) to mitigate the risks highlighted by multiple reviewers.
