Overall sentiment in the reviews for Cary Health and Rehabilitation Center is highly polarized and inconsistent: many families report exceptional, compassionate care and very effective therapy leading to good recovery outcomes, while a substantial portion of reviews describe severe neglect, unsafe clinical practices, and systemic management failures. The pattern that emerges is one of stark variability — a mix of standout individuals and teams who provide excellent service (especially in therapy and some nursing roles) alongside recurring reports of understaffing, poor communication, and serious safety lapses that have led to harm for some residents.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most frequently cited concerns. Multiple reviewers describe critical failures in wound care (including reports of bedsores progressing to severe wounds and sepsis), episodes of bleeding left unattended, missed or wrong medication doses, and residents left without hydration or basic hygiene for extended periods. There are specific, alarming incidents reported — a grade 4 wound leading to sepsis and hospice, prolonged bleeding with inadequate wound treatment, and multiple falls — that suggest that at least at times the facility has not provided consistent, safe clinical oversight. Several reviewers also noted staffing levels so low that clinicians and aides could not respond promptly to call bells; ratios such as one RN covering many rooms were specifically mentioned.
Staffing, staffing culture, and variability of caregivers are recurring themes. Many reviews praise individual caregivers by name — nurses, CNAs, admissions and therapy staff who were personable and effective. Therapy (PT/OT) is repeatedly singled out as a relative strength: reviewers describe customized rehab plans, diligent therapists, and successful discharge outcomes. Conversely, there are numerous reports of aides and some nurses who are perceived as indifferent, rushed, rude, or unprofessional. High turnover and inconsistent training were mentioned as contributing factors to the variability in care quality. Several reviews also underscore a reliance on families to compensate for staffing shortfalls (helping with feeding, prompting care, or advocating constantly).
Communication and administrative responsiveness are also highly mixed. Several families highlight exemplary admissions and community relations staff (most prominently Maryam Nasir and a few unit managers and directors) who were responsive, guided them through paperwork, and were available after-hours. Others describe social workers and case managers who were repeatedly unreachable, phone calls that went unanswered, and promises that were not followed through. There are mentions of new management and leadership changes that some reviewers credit with measurable improvements, suggesting that administration turnover or change in leadership has had a real impact on local performance.
Facilities, cleanliness, and supplies show an uneven picture. Some reviewers report clean, comfortable rooms, on-site amenities, and a pleasant environment. Many more describe old, dingy, or poorly maintained rooms and bathrooms, persistent odors (urine), broken toilets or showers, missing basic supplies (wipes, briefs, towels), and delays in maintenance requests (e.g., lights not fixed for weeks). Laundry and supply management lapses, soiled linens, and poor housekeeping in certain cases compound family concerns about infection control and dignity of care.
Dining and activities receive consistently mixed-to-negative feedback. Numerous reviews decry poor food quality — described as cold, overly processed, spicy, or insufficient — and instances of missed meals or trays left unfinished. Activity programming is noted as present and valuable for ambulatory residents in some accounts, but several reviewers point out a lack of engagement for bedbound residents (no appropriate in-room activities, no TV bingo, no cognitive activities like coloring or word searches). COVID-era visitation restrictions are mentioned repeatedly; while some families appreciated window visits and video conferencing support, others felt that the visitation policies and limited in-person contact exacerbated oversight problems.
Safety, regulatory, and accountability issues appear in multiple reviews. Families cite state investigations, CMS ratings that have changed over time, and at least some confirmed findings. Allegations of missing belongings and lack of accountability are frequent. There are also reports of HIPAA/privacy concerns and inconsistent infection control practices. Financial concerns appear as well: high nightly rates, complaints about out-of-network staff charging extra, and perceptions that the facility is profit-driven rather than care-focused.
In summary, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with clear strengths — notably an often-excellent therapy program, several highly committed clinical and administrative staff, and isolated units or times when care, cleanliness, and family communication are strong. However, these strengths coexist with significant, recurrent weaknesses: chronic understaffing, inconsistent nursing and aide quality, dangerous lapses in wound and medication management for some patients, frequent communication failures, and facility maintenance and supply problems. The net result is high variability in resident experience: families who encounter the right staff and unit report very positive outcomes, while others report neglect, serious clinical harm, and regulatory-level concerns. Prospective families should be prepared to ask detailed questions about staffing levels, wound-care protocols, call-bell response times, and specific plans for oversight and escalation; visitors and advocates may need to monitor care closely and follow up actively with the facility and regulators if serious issues arise.
