Overall sentiment from these reviews is markedly mixed, with strong polarization between examples of excellent, compassionate rehabilitation and caregiving and troubling reports of neglect, safety incidents, and administrative failures. Many reviewers emphasize that The Greens at Viewmont can and does deliver exceptional short-term rehab and subacute care: physical and occupational therapy teams, attentive nursing during rehab stays, effective discharge planning, and social work support (frequently naming Lisa Tapia) are repeatedly praised. Several families report quick admissions, warm welcomes, helpful admissions coordinators, timely pain control, and staff who treat residents like family. These positive reports include successful recoveries after surgery, effective wound care in some cases, and strong daily engagement from activities staff such as Nina King. Leadership and specific administrators receive commendations from multiple reviewers for visible involvement and supportive management, and common areas, when renovated, are described as clean and inviting.
Counterbalancing those positive threads are numerous, serious negative accounts. A recurring theme is inconsistent staffing quality and chronic understaffing, particularly on weekends and off shifts; this is tied to reports of missed care such as delayed assistance, missed baths for prolonged periods, instances of soiled briefs left on residents, and feeding neglect that contributed to significant weight loss (one reported 12 pounds). Medication administration concerns appear repeatedly, ranging from overmedication to unsafe practices such as crushing pills into applesauce inappropriately. Several reviewers reported documentation inaccuracies, ignored medical orders, and slow responses to clinical changes; in some cases these gaps were associated with infections, open/incised wounds not being properly managed, ER transfers for emergency dialysis or infection, and even deaths. These incidents are serious red flags that some families advise others to avoid the facility entirely.
Management and administrative behavior is another divided area. Some reviews single out administrators (Johnny Poovey and others) and office staff as thoughtful, responsive, and visible; others describe management as money-driven, unempathetic, dismissive of family concerns, or contributing to poor accountability. Allegations of nepotism and scheduling favoritism because family members are employed at the facility create perceptions of unfair treatment and inconsistent scheduling. Communication receives mixed ratings: many families praise the social work team for coordinating care and keeping lines open with healthcare resources, while other families recount being ignored by front-desk or office staff and experiencing difficulty reaching responsible personnel when concerns arise.
Facility environment, amenities, and activities are described unevenly. Several reviewers appreciate renovated therapy halls, clean hallways, church services, a bird enclosure, and organized activities (bingo, singing, pizza parties). Others report small, crowded or shared rooms, outdated bathrooms and showers, bad smells, and maintenance problems such as nonfunctional bed remotes or lifts. Dining is another divided area but trends negative overall: numerous reviewers note poor food quality and a lack of home-cooked flavor. Activity levels vary by unit and reviewer—some residents love the schedule and engagement, while others report minimal stimulation and insufficient programming.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility capable of excellent, compassionate rehabilitation and successful short-term recoveries when staffing, leadership, and specific therapy teams are engaged and responsive. At the same time, consistent patterns of staffing shortages, episodes of neglect, lapses in clinical care (medication and feeding administration), and administrative inconsistencies lead to serious adverse outcomes for some residents. The facility appears to have strong individual performers (social workers, therapists, certain nurses and administrators) whose efforts materially improve resident experiences; however, uneven performance across shifts and departments creates substantial variability in quality.
For prospective families or referral sources, these reviews suggest several practical takeaways: visit the specific unit/wing where a loved one would be placed to judge room size, cleanliness, and activity levels; ask about staffing ratios on weekends and overnight; confirm protocols for medication and feeding administration and wound care; request contacts for the social worker and therapy team and review recent incident/inspection records if available. Monitor weight, skin integrity, and timely documentation closely if a loved one is admitted. The Greens at Viewmont demonstrates clear strengths in rehabilitation, social work coordination, and compassionate individual staff, but the facility also shows recurring, significant risk areas that warrant careful inquiry and ongoing family involvement.
