The reviews for White Oak Manor Shelby are strongly mixed, with many reviewers reporting exceptional experiences in certain areas while others describe serious and potentially dangerous shortcomings. Positive feedback centers on the dining, rehabilitation, and several dedicated staff members. Multiple reviewers highlight that the food can be very good and non-institutional (fried chicken called out by name), and several families reported successful post-surgery recoveries, effective wound care, and strong rehab/therapy support. The facility’s environment is frequently described as clean, neat, pleasantly scented, and open — an inviting place to visit that does not feel dreary. Numerous comments praise nurses, CNAs, therapy staff, and kitchen staff as friendly, caring, and effective; specific individuals and training programs (e.g., a highly regarded CNA class and a nurse named Kelsey) receive repeated commendations. Some residents reportedly left happy and healthy, and some staff say it is a wonderful place to work.
Contrasting sharply with the positive reports are multiple accounts of poor clinical care, management failures, and sanitation problems. Several reviews describe neglectful care: missed bathing, unmet basic feeding needs, ignored requests for finger foods, and situations where residents were left hungry or in soiled bedding. There are allegations of medication mismanagement and staff lying about pain medication, plus at least one report of a resident experiencing chest pain with no appropriate response. These represent serious safety and quality-of-care concerns. Pest sightings (ants and rats) and unsanitary conditions (dirty diapers, bed left wet with urine) appear in a subset of reviews and are explicitly characterized as unacceptable by reviewers who experienced them.
Food and dining emerge as a polarized theme: while many reviewers praise the meals and non-institutional taste, a number of reports detail poor food handling or preparation (undercooked items, raw bacon, cold meals), discrepancies between the menu and what is served, and an unhelpful dietary director. This variability suggests inconsistent dining quality across shifts or units. Staffing and management issues are another frequent pattern: reviewers cite understaffing, high turnover, overworked and underpaid staff, and variable professionalism depending on time of day or day of the week (rude weekend staff is mentioned). Several families describe administration as unresponsive, mean-spirited, or dismissive, and note that grievances and billing disputes remained unresolved for extended periods. There are also explicit reports urging families to file formal complaints, and at least one reviewer intends to escalate concerns to Medicare; billing transparency and dispute resolution are recurring pain points.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility capable of providing high-quality, compassionate care and successful rehabilitation for some residents, driven by committed nurses, CNAs, and therapy teams. However, the care experience appears highly inconsistent: the same facility also exhibits instances of neglect, unsafe clinical response, sanitation lapses, pest issues, and managerial unresponsiveness. This variability makes the overall reputation mixed-to-uneven. For prospective residents and families, key themes to investigate further include staffing ratios (especially on weekends and nights), medication administration practices and call-button responsiveness, pest control and sanitation protocols, dietary management and meal consistency, dementia care capabilities, and how grievances or billing disputes are handled. Asking for recent inspection reports, staffing rosters, examples of corrective actions for complaints, and references from recent residents who required similar levels of care could help determine whether White Oak Manor Shelby’s strengths will match an individual’s needs and mitigate the risks reflected in the negative reviews.
