Overall impression: Reviews for College Pines Health and Rehabilitation are strongly mixed, with a substantial number of reviewers praising the facility’s rehabilitation services, many individual staff members, and the physical environment, while other reviews raise serious and specific concerns about inconsistent care, sanitation, communication, and safety. The balance of feedback suggests that the facility can deliver excellent short-term rehab and compassionate day-to-day care in many cases, but that there are recurring patterns of variability in staffing, leadership, and clinical oversight that have led multiple reviewers to report significant negative outcomes.
Care quality and staffing: One of the clearest positive patterns is frequent praise for the therapy teams (PT/OT), with multiple reviewers calling the therapy care phenomenal and describing successful recoveries, earlier-than-expected discharges, and restored function. Many families also report that nurses and CNAs were caring, attentive, and respectful, providing quality feeding, bathing, and transfers. Conversely, a recurring negative theme is inconsistency in staff competence and responsiveness: reviewers report slow call-bell responses (particularly on weekends and nights), staff who are perceived as rude or indifferent, and examples of poor clinical practice (medication errors, incorrect CPAP/oxygen hookup). Several reviews explicitly contrast an earlier period of good leadership and attentive care with more recent declines attributed to a change in DON/administrator.
Safety, medical incidents, and communication: Several reviewers allege serious safety failures — not being notified about falls, delays or refusals to send residents to the ER, leaving patients unattended (e.g., in wheelchairs overnight), and alleged failure to follow doctor orders. Some reviews go further and attribute resident deaths or severe outcomes (kidney infection leading to sepsis, death after apparent lack of transfer to higher care) to lapses in care; these are reported as reviewer allegations rather than facility-confirmed events. Communication problems are frequently mentioned: families report poor notification about incidents, difficulty reaching staff by phone (busy lines, voicemail), and inconsistent updates. These issues create significant concern for prospective residents and families given the potential clinical consequences.
Cleanliness, infection control, and environment: Many reviewers praise the building’s appearance — described as airy, redecorated, and well-appointed — and note private rooms with new furniture and a pleasant, home-like atmosphere. At the same time, several reviews raise sanitation concerns tied primarily to carpeted floors and reports of urine odors, urine-soaked socks, and unclean conditions in some rooms; a few reviewers explicitly reported infections (MRSA, pneumonia) that they believe were contracted at the facility. The carpet is also mentioned as hampering staff mobility and potentially contributing to hygiene problems. In short, the physical plant is attractive and comfortable for many residents, but cleanliness and infection-control practices appear inconsistent across reports.
Dining and daily life: Reports on food and dining are mixed. Some families praise the dietary staff and describe the food as very good, with staff attentive to residents and a variety of meals. Others report being left off meal lists, insufficient portions, or limited breakfast options (examples: sausage and sweet rolls), and that dietary needs were not adequately reviewed. Activities and communal life receive generally positive comments: many reviews note a range of daily activities, Sunday services, a family-like atmosphere, and staff that prioritize resident dignity and engagement.
Management, accountability, and costs: Several reviews raise concerns about leadership and accountability. While some reviewers commend the administration and DON for their accessibility and responsiveness, others say leadership is unapproachable or indifferent and that prior administrators cared more. Practical accountability issues are reported (e.g., walker mishandling and lack of follow-through, busy phone lines, unclear policies around ambulance/ER transfers). One reviewer mentioned the facility’s monthly cost as high relative to expectations. These mixed assessments suggest leadership and managerial consistency are important variables affecting resident experience.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The reviews reveal two clear clusters of experiences — consistently positive rehabilitation-focused stays with skilled PT/OT and caring staff, and highly negative experiences characterized by alleged neglect, poor hygiene, medication/equipment errors, and critical communication failures. Because experiences appear to vary by shift, unit, and over time with leadership changes, prospective residents and families should visit in person, ask targeted questions about current leadership, staffing ratios, weekend and night coverage, infection-control practices (especially regarding carpeting), call-bell response times, policies for emergency transfer to the ER, medication management procedures, and how dietary needs are handled and tracked. Also request recent inspection reports, infection rates, and references from recent families who had similar care needs.
Bottom line: College Pines can provide strong rehabilitation outcomes and many families report compassionate, effective care in a pleasant facility. However, multiple reviewers report serious and specific safety, hygiene, and communication failures — including allegations of infections and fatal outcomes — as well as variability tied to leadership and staff competence. These conflicting signals warrant careful, up-to-date verification by prospective residents and families before placing a loved one at the facility.
