Overall sentiment is strongly mixed: many reviewers describe Pineville Rehabilitation & Living Center as a warm, effective place for short-term rehabilitation with highly capable therapy teams and a number of compassionate, professional staff; simultaneously, a substantial portion of reviews report serious, sometimes dangerous lapses in basic care, cleanliness, and staffing that have led families to escalate complaints or remove loved ones. The volume and intensity of both positive and negative comments indicate a facility with real strengths—notably in rehab outcomes and individual caregivers—and recurring operational weaknesses that create a highly variable resident experience.
Care quality and safety: One of the clearest patterns is polarization in perceived care quality. Numerous accounts praise the rehabilitation program (physical, occupational, and speech therapy), crediting staff and clinicians with measurable recoveries and successful discharges home. Several reviewers singled out physicians and advanced practice clinicians for good diagnostic care and bedside manner. In contrast, other reviews recount severe safety and care failures: missed or incorrect medications (including an insulin error), patients left soiled for long periods, dropped patients, bedsores, dehydration, and hospital transfers attributed to inadequate care. There are multiple reports of an unsafe discharge while benefits were pending and at least one mention of Adult Protective Services involvement. These safety concerns are serious and repeatedly cited, suggesting systemic risk factors rather than isolated incidents.
Staffing, consistency, and culture: Staffing issues are a dominant theme. Many reviewers explicitly describe chronic understaffing and regular use of agency/temporary nurses who are portrayed as unfamiliar with residents’ needs. Several reports note a stark difference between shifts—first-shift staff often receive praise for responsiveness and compassion, while second or night shifts are frequently described as inattentive, slow to respond to call lights, or absent from the floor. This uneven staffing contributes to inconsistent care, missed tasks (e.g., bathing, timely diaper changes), and family distress. Alongside these criticisms are many heartfelt testimonials to individual employees—nurses, CNAs, receptionists, the DON (Tiffany in some accounts), and specific therapists—who are described as going above and beyond. The coexistence of strong, committed staff and complaints about neglect suggests morale and operational stresses that result in variable resident experiences.
Facility and housekeeping: Reviews about the physical facility trend toward two narratives. A large set of reviews describe the interior as clean, bright, well-maintained, and smelling fresh, with pleasant, spacious rooms and inviting common/dining areas. Other reviews raise continuing problems with odors of urine in hallways, missed cleaning tasks, scattered bird feed, ragged outdoor furniture, and pest sightings (roaches, water bugs). The exterior and outdoor areas are more often criticized as uninviting, and grounds upkeep (patio mosquitoes, yardwork) is noted as needing attention. The mixed reports on cleanliness—ranging from “very clean” to “disgusting” with pest infestations—mirror the broader pattern of inconsistent performance.
Dining and amenities: Opinions on food are mixed. Some reviewers praised the dining, calling meals good or “yummy,” and appreciated the inviting dining rooms. Others reported poor, cold, or inedible food and noted that residents were not fed unless family was present. Complaints extend to missing condiments and general neglect at mealtime for residents who require assistance. Activities programming receives predominantly positive remarks: an engaged activities director, frequent events, and residents observed as actively participating and enjoying social offerings.
Management, communication, and admissions: Admissions and front-desk staff receive frequent praise for being welcoming, informative, and helpful—especially around insurance, Medicaid applications, and initial orientation. Several families said the admissions team and some administrators were proactive, transparent, and responsive. However, multiple accounts criticize management for being distracted, slow to return calls, or requiring escalation to achieve improvements. There are reports where contacting the director of nursing produced positive change, indicating that escalation can help, but reliance on families to advocate heavily for basic care is a recurring complaint.
Notable patterns and risk areas: Recurrent themes that warrant caution include: the variability of care between shifts, potential for serious medication and documentation errors, repeated reports of residents left in soiled conditions, pest sightings, and instances of rude or abusive staff behavior. These are not isolated single mentions but appear across many reviews and include allegations of regulatory involvement, hospitalizations, and protective services—signals that families should weigh carefully. At the same time, the facility demonstrates core strengths in therapy outcomes, several deeply committed staff members, good admissions support, and instances of effective administration and communication.
Bottom line recommendation: Pineville Rehabilitation & Living Center offers strong rehabilitation services and has many staff members and administrators who provide excellent, compassionate care; families seeking short-term rehab or therapy may find it highly effective. However, prospective residents and families should be alert to the facility’s variability—ask targeted questions about staffing levels across all shifts, use of agency nurses, infection control and pest management practices, policies for timely toileting/diaper changes, medication administration safeguards, handling of personal belongings, and incident reporting. When possible, seek recent references, request to meet the therapy team and the DON, and consider visiting at different times of day to assess consistency. The mixed nature of the reviews suggests that individual experiences can differ dramatically depending on timing, unit staffing, and specific caregivers on duty.
