The reviews for Asheville Nursing & Rehabilitation Center present a highly mixed and polarized picture, with a significant number of serious negative reports alongside a smaller but notable set of positive comments. Positive feedback concentrates primarily on therapy services and specific nursing staff: multiple reviewers praise the therapy department and describe a competent, compassionate subset of nurses and caregivers. A few families reported clean rooms, good food, and an overall pleasant experience when particular staff members were assigned. These positive comments suggest pockets of good care and skilled clinicians working at the facility.
However, the negative reports are numerous and severe in scope, describing both systemic and episodic failures. Major themes include neglect (long delays responding to call lights, residents left in urine or in bathrooms for extended periods), active mistreatment (yelling, shoving, mental abuse), and medication and safety problems (examples of being given another patient’s medicine, missed medications, and reports of denied access to meds). There are repeated accounts of basic personal care failures — residents not bathed, left in filth, developing bed sores or dehydration — which indicate both understaffing and poor oversight. Several reviews explicitly call out discriminatory behavior toward African American patients, which raises serious concerns about equality of care.
Staffing and management problems are prominent and appear to underlie many of the care issues. Reviewers describe chronic understaffing of CNAs and nurses, staff being overworked and required to take extra shifts, frequent staff turnover, and morale problems (underpaid staff, bitter receptionists, and alleged corruption). These workforce issues correlate with reports of rushed or missed care, inconsistent staff assignments, and poor shift-to-shift communication. Management-level failures are reported as well: poor communication with families (no updates on resident status, difficulty locating residents, long waits to reach a nurse), lack of scheduling transparency and payroll problems for employees, and unresolved complaints from families.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance are additional areas of concern. Multiple reviews describe persistent urine odors, stained and musty/moldy carpeting, visible trash, and dirty floors and walls. These environmental issues compound worries about infection control and resident dignity. Dining and routine services are inconsistent: while some reviewers note good food, others describe missed meals, delayed service, and overall unreliable provision of basic needs.
The pattern that emerges is one of stark inconsistency: some residents and families report excellent therapy outcomes and compassionate nurses, while many others report neglect, abusive behavior, and safety risks. The variability suggests that care quality may depend heavily on staffing levels, particular shifts, or individual employees rather than on uniformly applied policies and reliable supervision. Several reviewers urge avoidance — both as potential employers and as families seeking care — while others explicitly recommend the facility because of positive experiences with specific teams.
In summary, the facility shows evidence of capable clinical staff and strong therapy services in some cases, but the volume and severity of negative reports (neglect, abuse, medication errors, discrimination, poor cleanliness, and management/staffing failures) are substantial and troubling. These reviews point to systemic issues that warrant caution: potential residents and families should seek detailed, up-to-date information about staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, infection-control/cleanliness measures, incident reporting and resolution processes, and how the facility communicates with families. Prospective employees should be wary of reported scheduling and pay problems. If considering this center, an in-person visit during multiple shifts, conversations with current families, and review of state inspection and complaint records are strongly recommended to verify whether the positive elements reviewers report are consistent and whether the serious negative concerns have been addressed.
