The reviews present a starkly mixed picture of Salisbury Center, with a consistent split between positive impressions of certain staff members and serious, recurring operational and environmental failures that compromise resident safety, comfort, and hygiene. On the positive side, multiple reviewers single out staff members—especially the administrator—for being pleasant, cordial, informative, and responsive. These comments indicate that some front-line interpersonal interactions and administrative communication are handled well, and at least a few families feel comfortable enough to consider placing a relative at the center based on those interactions.
However, these individual positive interactions appear to coexist with systemic problems that are severe and frequent. Care quality issues are prominent: reviewers cite medication neglect, long waits for basic needs like water, residents being left unattended during physical therapy (one report of a resident left alone in a PT room for 45 minutes), and beds not being positioned correctly. These examples point to staffing or training shortfalls and inconsistent application of care protocols. Reports of improper wheelchair use resulting in swollen feet further underscore a pattern of inadequate hands-on assistance and potential harm arising from routine mobility/care tasks.
Facility infrastructure and sanitation are recurring and acute concerns. Several reviewers describe the building as being in very poor condition, with particularly troubling evidence of inadequate cleaning and infection-control practices: excrement smells on floors and walls and an explicitly low sanitation score were mentioned. These conditions raise red flags about resident dignity, environmental safety, and regulatory compliance. The fact that at least one reviewer advocated for the facility to be torn down or closed indicates the severity of perceived deficiencies. Compounding these issues, an extended power outage lasting 14 hours was reported, which highlights vulnerabilities in emergency preparedness and continuity of care systems.
There is also a disconnect between staff behavior and institutional standards: while staff interactions are often described as nice, reviewers observed staff smoking at the facility entrance, which undermines professionalism, creates an unpleasant environment for residents and visitors, and could violate smoking policies. Taken together, the pattern is one where individual staff members and leadership may behave supportively and communicate well, but institutional practices, environmental upkeep, and consistent clinical care are failing in ways that materially affect resident safety and wellbeing.
In summary, Salisbury Center shows laudable strengths in some interpersonal aspects—especially the administrator’s communication and certain staff members’ bedside manner—but those strengths are overshadowed by frequent, serious lapses in care delivery, sanitation, facility condition, emergency preparedness, and basic resident assistance. These are not isolated complaints but a set of interrelated problems that suggest systemic issues with staffing levels or training, maintenance and cleaning regimes, and overall management of safety-critical operations. Any decision about placement or continued use should weigh the positive interpersonal experiences against the documented risks to health, hygiene, and safety reflected in these reviews.
