Overall sentiment is sharply mixed and polarized. Many reviewers strongly praise Amherst Manor for its rehabilitation services, therapy teams, and individual staff members who demonstrate compassion, coordination, and clinical skill. Multiple families reported excellent short-term rehab outcomes, attentive therapists, good food, large rooms with private baths, attractive outdoor areas, and a warm, home-like feeling in certain units. At the same time a substantial and consistent body of reviews reports serious operational and safety problems, particularly chronic understaffing and failures of routine resident care. These conflicting experiences create a split impression: the facility can deliver excellent rehabilitation and individualized attention when staffing levels and specific staff assignments allow, but systemic problems appear to leave many residents at risk.
Care quality and clinical concerns form a major theme in negative reviews. Reviewers describe instances of missed or delayed clinical monitoring (for example inadequate INR lab monitoring), medication delays or omissions, and failures in oxygen management including an omitted oxygen event that reportedly led to ICU transfer. Several reports mention dehydration, urinary tract infections, C. diff infections, and COVID contraction while in the facility. Skin integrity problems are repeatedly cited: residents reportedly developed pressure ulcers or bedsores because they were not turned regularly or received insufficient repositioning and hygiene assistance. There are multiple accounts of falls, some resulting in injury, and claims that call lights were inaccessible or unanswered leading to delayed assistance and subsequent hospital transfers.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication are another consistent cluster of issues. Many reviewers describe aides being responsible for too many patients, long call light response times (often 15–30 minutes), staff instability, and high turnover. Families reported aides responsible for multiple baths and meal duties, which often left residents waiting for basic needs. Interdepartmental communication problems and management-level deflection were frequently noted; some reviewers said executives blamed for issues or unwilling to address concerns. Conversely, numerous reviews call out individual staff members (nurses, aides, therapists, and admissions coordinators) by name for outstanding coordination, empathy, and follow-through, indicating pockets of strong leadership and compassionate care. This suggests variability by shift, unit, or staff composition rather than uniform performance across the facility.
Facility condition and environmental factors are described inconsistently. Many reviews praise the facility as clean, airy, and well kept, with large rooms, private bathrooms, and pleasant grounds. The memory care (Alzheimer's) unit is reported as secure with pin-coded doors, and holiday activities and events were appreciated by families. However, other reviewers mention run-down areas, stained and broken chairs, worn-out beds, slimy IV stands, and strong odors of human waste on first and second floors. Laundry issues such as missing clothes and uncleanliness in specific equipment were reported. These mixed descriptions point to variability in maintenance and cleanliness across units or floors.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers compliment the food and a new cook, describing meals as superb, and many residents appear to enjoy crafts, bingo, happy hour, and holiday events. At the same time, some families report insufficient or absent activity programming, empty halls, and high guest dining charges. Activity levels seem to differ by unit and resident mobility; mobile clients often find plenty to do, whereas more dependent residents or certain units experienced low engagement.
Safety incidents and regulatory findings are concerning to many reviewers. Multiple accounts reference state citations related to inaccessible call lights and inadequate care. Specific severe incidents cited by reviewers include pressure ulcers, missed infection signs, omitted oxygen requiring ICU care, falls with poor follow-up, and allegations of denial of ambulance transport. These reports elevate safety concerns from isolated complaints to patterns warranting careful scrutiny by prospective residents and families.
In sum, Amherst Manor shows strengths in rehabilitation, therapy, and certain compassionate, skilled staff who can deliver high-quality, reassuring care. These strengths make the facility a strong option for short-term rehab and for residents who are relatively mobile and can participate in activities. However, there is a substantial and recurring set of safety and operational complaints—primarily chronic understaffing, long call response times, inconsistent nursing assistant competence, communication breakdowns, and periodic lapses in clinical monitoring and hygiene—that have reportedly led to serious adverse outcomes for some residents. Prospective residents and families should ask targeted questions about staffing levels by unit and shift, call light accessibility, skin care protocols, lab and medication monitoring, emergency transport policies, and recent state inspection results. Visiting multiple units in person, speaking with current families, and requesting details on how the facility addresses care shortfalls may help determine whether the facility’s strong rehab and individual staff members outweigh the operational risks highlighted by other reviewers.
