Overall impression: The reviews present a deeply mixed and polarized view of The Greens at Pinehurst Rehabilitation & Living Center. A substantial number of reviewers praise individual caregivers, reception staff, therapists, and certain administrators — describing them as compassionate, professional, and attentive. At the same time, there is a large and persistent body of complaints describing neglect, safety failures, poor hygiene, management breakdowns, and very serious singular incidents. This creates an environment in which experiences vary widely by shift, unit, or even specific personnel, resulting in a reputation that is at once capable of excellent individualized care and, in many cases, dangerously inconsistent.
Care quality and safety: One of the most significant themes is inconsistency in direct care. Numerous positive reviews describe thorough, respectful nursing and rehabilitation that helped residents recover and remain comfortable. However, many negative reports describe neglect (residents left in soiled clothing or waste for hours), long delays for bathroom assistance (reports of 30–45 minute waits), missing safety measures (missing bed rails), and medication/safety incidents such as a reported choking event during medication administration. There are also extreme and alarming allegations in the dataset — delays in signing a death certificate, a report that a patient was left in a freezer for multiple days, and accusations of theft by staff. Whether isolated or systemic, these incidents have strongly shaped negative sentiment and raise safety and regulatory concerns.
Staffing, morale and communication: Recurrent complaints point to chronic understaffing, high turnover, burnout, and demoralized employees. Many reviewers explicitly link poor care to insufficient staffing, staff answering phones while administering meds, or personnel being too overworked to maintain standards. Conversely, several reviews single out staff who consistently provide excellent care — including named CNAs, nurses, admissions, and social work staff — suggesting that dedicated individuals often compensate for systemic deficits. Communication with families is another major pain point: families report inadequate notification of condition changes, hospital transfers arranged without family awareness, delayed responses to family inquiries, and general disorganization. A number of reviews also praise improved communication and daily therapy/nursing discussions after management changes, indicating management can affect this area positively when functioning well.
Facilities, cleanliness and maintenance: Reports of facility condition are mixed. Multiple reviewers say public areas and some wings are clean, welcoming, and odor-free; other visitors describe dirty rooms, unattended trash, recurrent foul smells, and inadequate housekeeping (floors not mopped, bathrooms not cleaned, toilets that won’t flush). Maintenance and refurbishment needs are repeatedly mentioned: outdated rooms, shared rooms complicating comfort and privacy, and occasional lack of basic supplies (no forks, no water — only ice, shortages of diapers/tea). Some reviewers note visible improvements under new leadership and specific successful refurbishments (new aviary, refreshed wings), but the contrast between clean and unsanitary conditions suggests uneven housekeeping and maintenance practices across the facility.
Dining and supplies: Food quality is a clear and frequent complaint — descriptors include "horrendous," "cold," "slop," canned ham, and meals that do not match diet orders. Several reviews indicate reductions in quality or quantity (tea shortages, reduced food). Yet a minority of reviewers reported satisfactory or even very good food experiences. Supply shortages extend beyond food: narcotic pain medication shortages, diaper shortages, and general supply problems were reported. These operational issues contribute to the perception of corners being cut and priorities favoring cost control over resident comfort.
Management, leadership and accountability: Many reviewers criticize leadership and corporate oversight, describing poor management coordination, slow or nonexistent responses from upper management, lack of transparency, and an atmosphere that prioritizes profits over residents. Reports include allegations of cutting staff benefits (vacation pay cuts), removing phones from rooms, and confusion about insurance leading to premature discharges. However, some reviews specifically note positive changes tied to new administration (naming a new administrator and improvements in morale and coordination), which suggests that management turnover has been recent and that service quality may be in flux. Nevertheless, repeated calls for investigations and mentions of potential regulatory risk (Medicare payment threats, chatter of potential shutdown) indicate serious vulnerabilities in governance.
Culture and interpersonal behavior: Reviewers describe a broad range of staff demeanor — from tender, humble, and respectful caregivers to sarcastic, rude, and even aggressive employees. There are allegations of staff gossiping about residents, racist incidents, yelling, and unprofessional conduct by specific staff members. Simultaneously, multiple reviews emphasize a warm, community feeling in some units, with staff who "go above and beyond," activity-led engagement, and volunteers contributing to a home-like atmosphere. This bifurcation again suggests a facility with strong pockets of compassionate care alongside problematic behaviors that undermine trust and safety.
Rehabilitation, activities and specialized services: Rehabilitation services and therapy receive a number of positive comments — families praise daily therapists, progress in rehab, and supportive therapy staff who encourage residents. Activity programming and engagement (monthly outings, volunteer nail painting, social groups) are commonly noted as strengths where present. Some reviews mention good dementia safety and resilience of staff in that specialty. Yet gaps in specialty care are also flagged — examples include a physician with insufficient wound/pain management experience, infrequent podiatry/eye visits noted by families, and inconsistent hospice coordination.
Patterns, risk signals, and recommendations: The most consistent pattern is variability. Positive reviews show that the facility can deliver high-quality, compassionate care, particularly when specific staff or management are present and supported. Negative reviews cluster around understaffing, poor leadership, hygiene lapses, medication and safety incidents, and poor communication. Several reported incidents (theft, extreme neglect allegations, medication-related choking, death certificate delays, and threats to regulatory standing) are red flags that warrant investigation by prospective families and oversight bodies. Families considering placement should seek up-to-date information about staffing levels, ask for specifics on recent leadership changes and corrective action plans, request references from current families, verify incident reporting and regulatory history, and consider short trial stays while monitoring responsiveness, cleanliness, and communication.
Bottom line: The Greens at Pinehurst shows both notable strengths (individual staff compassion and some strong rehab and activity programming) and very serious weaknesses (systemic understaffing, safety incidents, management failures, and cleanliness/food issues). The facility appears to be in transition in places, with some evidence of improvement under new administration, but the volume and severity of negative reports — including allegations that could indicate systemic failures — mean families should proceed cautiously, perform thorough due diligence, and monitor care closely if choosing this facility.
