Overall impression: The reviews for Kimes Nursing & Rehab Center are highly polarized, with a substantial number of very positive accounts and a number of very serious negative allegations. Many reviewers praise the facility as family-owned with long-tenured leadership and staff who provide warm, personalized care in a clean, home-like environment. At the same time, other reviewers describe significant safety, medication, hospice, and staffing problems, including allegations of neglect and falsified records. This creates a mixed picture: for some families the facility appears to deliver exemplary, attentive long‑term care; for others it is inadequate or unsafe for higher medical needs.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Multiple reviewers describe high-quality nursing and therapy, prompt responsiveness, strong skin‑care/prevention practices, and staff who take pride in delivering healthcare. Conversely, several reports raise severe clinical concerns: missed medications, delays in medication reconciliation, alleged overmedication, and missed hospice visits (including accounts of a hospice nurse not showing up or being unavailable for extended periods). There are also reports of health declines and even death tied by reviewers to poor hospice follow-through. Some reviewers explicitly state that the facility is better suited to residents with basic custodial needs rather than those requiring complex medical management.
Staffing, management and culture: Positive reviews consistently highlight supportive management, teamwork, administrators who help on the floor, long-tenured staff (22 years ownership noted), and staff who 'go above and beyond.' These accounts emphasize personalized attention, good communication with families, and a genuine sense that residents become part of a family. Negative reviews, however, describe understaffing, unhappy or uncommunicative staff, ignored alarms, missed meals, and instances of staff being unresponsive when needed. There are also serious accusations in some summaries of dishonesty and falsified records; other reviews note that the facility invites verification through state surveys and by speaking to current residents. This dichotomy suggests variability in management practices or inconsistent staffing levels/shifts.
Safety and incidents: Several reviewers report alarming safety events, including falls that resulted in broken hips or ribs and ignored alarms. Allegations of neglect and missed care (missed meals, ignored calls) are present alongside reports of missing personal belongings. These are significant red flags for families whose loved ones require higher-acuity supervision. In contrast, other reviewers explicitly describe strong fall-prevention measures and attentive care, indicating that safety outcomes may be inconsistent across units, shifts, or resident groups.
Environment, rooms and cleanliness: Many reviewers praise the facility’s cleanliness and maintenance, describing rooms as comfortable, sheets fresh, and common areas well-kept. Positive accounts describe a serene, home-like atmosphere. However, other reviewers report cramped double rooms, bedridden roommates, and filthy shared bathrooms. These contrasting observations point to uneven physical conditions or differing standards across room types and time periods.
Activities, dining and community life: There are multiple positive comments about resident engagement — organized activities, events with good volunteer turnout, DJs and snacks, and staff who facilitate social programming. Reviewers frequently note nutritious meals and a welcoming dining/home environment. Some critical reviews, however, mention low activity levels and residents who are uncommunicative or miserable, suggesting variability in program availability or resident fit.
Accountability, oversight and patterns: The summaries include references to government oversight and state surveys and a facility invitation to verify conditions by speaking to residents. At the same time, a subset of reviews alleges serious wrongdoing such as falsified records and mismanagement. Because some claims are described as unsubstantiated in the review summaries, they should be treated as allegations requiring external verification (state inspection reports, Medicare/Medicaid surveys, or direct inquiries). The presence of both long-tenured ownership and repeated praise for staff suggests institutional stability; the serious negative reports suggest possible episodic problems, staffing shortages, or inconsistent practices.
Who might this facility suit: Based on the mixed reports, Kimes Nursing & Rehab Center may be a good fit for families seeking a community-oriented, personalized, and home-like nursing environment where staff often form close bonds with residents and where many families report excellent care and activities. However, families with loved ones who need high-acuity, consistent clinical oversight, reliable medication management, or complex hospice support should approach cautiously and verify specific clinical capabilities.
Actionable considerations for prospective families (based on review themes): Reviewers’ experiences suggest prospective residents/families should (a) review the facility’s most recent state and federal inspection reports, (b) ask for specifics about staffing levels and typical staff-to-resident ratios on relevant shifts, (c) inquire directly about medication management and hospice protocols, (d) tour the specific unit/room types to assess cleanliness and space (double vs private rooms), (e) ask to speak with current families about their experiences, and (f) request documentation or examples of fall‑prevention, incident reporting, and how missing‑belonging incidents are handled. These steps will help reconcile the strongly positive and strongly negative reports and determine whether the facility can meet a particular resident’s needs.
Bottom line: Reviews indicate that Kimes Nursing & Rehab Center has many strengths — committed long‑tenured staff, warm culture, engaging programming, and periods of excellent care — but also several recurring and serious concerns, chiefly around staffing consistency, medication and hospice delivery, safety incidents, and variable room/cleanliness conditions. The facility appears to deliver excellent care for many residents, but the variability and severity of negative reports warrant careful, specific due diligence before placement, especially for residents with higher medical needs.
