Overall sentiment across these review summaries is highly mixed but trends strongly toward negative. Multiple reviewers describe serious problems with cleanliness, basic personal care, safety, facility maintenance, and management responsiveness. At the same time a subset of reviewers praise the staff—particularly the rehab/therapy team—and report meaningful recovery and improved health for some residents. The result is a polarized picture: some people had positive rehab experiences and encountered friendly staff, while others describe neglect, filth, and unsafe conditions.
Care quality and resident hygiene are the most frequently cited concerns. Several reviews allege neglectful care: residents reportedly went long periods without showers (one report says over three months), sheets and rooms exhibiting urine and dried bowel matter, rotten food on the floor, dried food on curtains, and dirty diapers improperly disposed of. There are also reports of missing clothing and generally poor room upkeep. These kinds of allegations point to systemic failures in daily personal care, infection control, and housekeeping in at least some parts or time periods of the facility.
Staffing and staff behavior show wide variability in the reviews. Many reviewers call individual staff members friendly, helpful, and supportive; some explicitly praise the rehab team and note recovery progress. Conversely, other reviewers report few caring nurses, poor staff visibility (no staff present in the lobby, doorbell unanswered), and instances of staff smoking at the front door. There are also severe allegations of drug activity among staff and residents and descriptions of an unsafe environment. Taken together, the comments indicate inconsistent staffing levels and supervision, with pockets of competent, compassionate care existing alongside reports of neglect and misconduct.
Facility condition and safety are recurring issues. Multiple complaints describe an old, dark, and gloomy building that appears neglected—lobbies cluttered with boxes, blocked entrances from vehicles, and smoke clouds at the main door. Some reviews mention remodeling ongoing and areas that seemed clean and orderly, but these appear inconsistent. Safety concerns are amplified by reports of drug activity, the presence of residents with felony histories (noted both neutrally and as a source of concern), and at least one mention of a resident death or friends leaving the facility because of care quality.
Management, communication, and financial practices are additional problem areas in the reviews. Several reviewers report that administration is hard to reach, does not return calls, and that there are long waits for assistance. There are troubling allegations about financial mismanagement, spend-down concerns, and involvement of a social worker in spending-related matters—issues that raise questions about billing practices, transparency, and resident advocacy. Distance and lack of oversight by family members exacerbate these problems for some reviewers.
Dining and food handling receive specific negative mentions (rotten food on the floor, dried food on curtains), suggesting lapses in meal service and sanitation. Activities programming is not prominently discussed in the summaries; however, descriptions of the environment as depressing and residents being treated like 'cattle' imply that social engagement and quality-of-life offerings may be limited in affected areas.
A notable pattern is the strong inconsistency between reviews: while some people describe a "very nice facility" with "awesome staff" and good rehabilitation outcomes, others insist the place is neglected, unsafe, and unfit for loved ones. This divergence could reflect changes over time, differences between wings or shifts, or widely variable standards of care among staff teams. Because of the severity of many negative reports (hygiene failures, alleged drug activity, financial concerns, and safety issues), these mixed reviews should be treated cautiously.
In summary, potential residents and families should approach Roselawn Gardens Healthcare LLC with caution. If considering placement, an in-person visit at different times of day and on different days of the week is advisable to assess cleanliness, staff availability, resident interaction, and food service. Ask management about recent licensing inspections, complaint history, staffing ratios, infection-control and laundry procedures, policies on staff hiring/monitoring, how they handle behavioral issues and criminal histories, and the facility's process for family communication and financial transparency. The documented successes in rehab and the presence of caring staff are positives, but the recurring serious allegations suggest the need for careful, thorough evaluation before entrusting a loved one to this facility.
