Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly mixed and highly polarized. Many reviewers report a transformed, compassionate environment under new management and praise specific staff for excellent care; others describe serious neglect, unprofessional behavior, and unsafe conditions that led them to strongly advise against placing loved ones at the facility. There is a clear pattern of improvement cited by a number of families—often linked to recent leadership changes and named personnel—contrasted with numerous longstanding or prior problems that continue to worry some reviewers.
Care quality is one of the most frequently debated themes. Positive accounts emphasize attentive nursing teams, caring CNAs, and coordinators who walk the halls and check on residents. Several reviewers credit rehabilitation staff with meaningful improvement and successful discharges home. Conversely, many reviews describe neglectful incidents: residents found on the floor, soiled briefs left too long, missed meals, dehydration, missed or poorly managed medications and diabetes care, and call bells left unanswered. Memory/dementia care is specifically criticized by multiple reviewers who say staff lack appropriate understanding or training. A recurring pattern is inconsistency—some units or halls (e.g., reports of very good care on the “100 hall”) receive high marks while other units (e.g., “500 hall”) are singled out for poor care.
Staff behavior and culture receive both praise and criticism. Multiple family members name and thank individuals—Natasha, Cheslie/Chelsie, Ashley, Wanita, Truman, Victoria, and others—for compassionate, communicative, and hands-on leadership and care. New executive team members are repeatedly connected to improved communication, problem-solving, and a warmer environment. Yet other reviewers recount rude, discriminatory, or unprofessional staff interactions, including privacy concerns (alleged video recording of patients), disrespectful comments, and at least one report of discriminatory or hateful behavior. Several reviews highlight that staff are underpaid and overworked, sometimes causing burnout, back strain for CNAs, or inattentive care.
Facility, maintenance, and supplies generate mixed feedback. Many reviewers praise cleanliness and housekeeping—rooms smelling good, tidy common areas, and holiday decorations. The building is often described as older but well maintained in appearance. Nonetheless, tangible operational issues recur: no or inadequate air conditioning causing hot conditions, leaks under sinks, missing supplies like urinals and bedpans, small or broken wheelchairs, and TV remotes or reception problems. Some maintenance issues are handled promptly by individual staff, but other reviewers describe ongoing maintenance neglect. Several families report having to provide equipment, medications, or personal care supplies themselves.
Dining, activities, and amenities are uneven. Some residents and families praise meals and the activity program, saying the mother enjoyed meals and made friends, and there is an outdoor sitting area and welcoming greeter. Other reviews bluntly call the food terrible, with some meals left uneaten. Entertainment options are limited in some rooms (antenna-only TV), and aides are sometimes described as not assisting residents to meals without multiple prompts.
Safety and dignity concerns are among the most serious issues raised. Multiple reviewers described incidents where residents’ hygiene and dignity were neglected—feces smeared in hair, soiled briefs, and poor grooming. There are also reports of medication mismanagement (including a claim of improper diabetes feeding), privacy violations, and allegations that state inspections only temporarily improve conditions. These accounts represent red flags that prospective families should investigate thoroughly.
Patterns and practical recommendations emerging from the reviews: the facility appears to be in a transitional phase—many positive accounts specifically reference newer management, improved communication, and staff who are going above and beyond. However, variability between shifts, units, and individual staff members is pronounced. Prospective families should (1) ask specifically about the unit their loved one would live in and which staff would be assigned, (2) inquire about night staffing levels and call bell response times, (3) confirm the status of air conditioning and essential supplies/equipment, (4) check how the facility manages dementia care and medication/diabetes protocols, and (5) request references or speak with current families about recent changes. Named staff and administrators receive strong praise from multiple reviewers—connecting with those individuals may provide a clearer picture of current practices.
In summary, Barbour Court Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has substantive evidence of both meaningful improvements and serious, unresolved problems. The facility can and does provide compassionate, effective care in many cases—especially where new leadership and specific staff are involved—but the frequency and severity of negative reports (neglect, inconsistent care, safety and dignity breaches, operational issues) make it essential for families to investigate unit-level performance, staffing patterns, and recent inspection outcomes before placement. The center shows potential and recent positive change, but the risk of inconsistent care remains significant based on the review set provided.
