Overall sentiment across reviews for Saint Therese at St. Mary of the Woods is highly mixed and often polarized. A large subset of reviewers praise the facility’s physical environment, spiritual life, therapy teams, and certain frontline staff; another substantial subset reports serious, sometimes dangerous lapses in basic care, communication, and management. This results in two very distinct narratives: one of a beautiful, well-appointed campus with compassionate caregivers and strong rehab outcomes, and another of understaffing, neglect, and operational problems that jeopardize resident safety.
Facilities and environment: Reviews consistently describe the campus as attractive, clean, and well-maintained. Multiple reviews mention a beautiful chapel, well-kept grounds, updated rooms and appliances, and a bright, home-like atmosphere. The facility’s integration of independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing is noted as a convenience by families, along with a location close to the hospital. Dining and food service receive mostly positive comments—many reviewers compliment the meals, chef, and cafeteria-style dining—although a significant minority report inconsistent food service, trays dropped, or kitchen staff who do not meet standards.
Care quality and clinical services: Therapy (PT/OT) and the rehab unit are recurring strengths in many reviews. Several families credit therapy and skilled nursing with meaningful recovery and praise knowledgeable, thorough therapists. Some reviewers specifically highlight skilled nurses and around-the-clock clinical capability (including accommodation for specialized needs such as CORPAK feeding tubes). However, there is a repeated and serious pattern of inconsistent caregiving: reports of long delays answering call lights, missed bathing and hygiene, soiled linens, incontinence not addressed promptly, and medication delays or recording errors. These lapses have been associated by multiple reviewers with resident falls, emergency hospitalizations, and in at least one instance, death following a fall. The contrast suggests that while some clinical teams perform well, staffing shortages and shift-to-shift variability produce significant safety risks for other residents.
Staff behavior, culture, and management: Many reviews single out individual staff members—nurses, therapists, social workers, and aides—as compassionate, professional, and attentive; named staff and social workers receive strong praise in several accounts. At the same time, a large volume of reviews report unprofessional behavior (staff on personal calls, cell phone distraction, masks worn improperly, feet on tables), favoritism, and a perception that management sometimes tolerates poor practice. Communication from management is described as excellent in some cases and lacking or evasive in others. Several reviewers recount problematic admission or discharge paperwork, billing disputes, and a sense that the operation is revenue-focused. This mixed portrayal points to variable leadership and inconsistent enforcement of standards.
Safety, incidents, and clinical failures: A notable and concerning cluster of reviews details neglect severe enough to cause falls, wounds, potential bedsores, and unaddressed clinical needs. Examples include residents left in feces and urine, long waits for assistance causing bathroom falls, delayed pain medication, and failure to secure promised safety equipment like bed alarms and specialty mattresses. Families describe having to constantly advocate to get basic care met, and in multiple reports the escalation of care to other facilities led to measurable improvement. Infection-control and PPE lapses during COVID are also mentioned in some accounts.
Activities, spiritual life, and community: The facility’s programming is frequently praised—musical performances, visits from recognized ensembles, crafts, exercise groups, monthly celebrations, and frequent worship services are regularly cited as strong positives. For residents and families seeking a faith-based environment, the on-site chapel and regular mass are major draws. The social and activity programming contributes to reports of a warm, family-like community when staffing supports it.
Patterns and recommended caution: The dominant pattern is variability. Many reviewers report excellent experiences—clean rooms, compassionate nurses, strong therapy, good meals, and meaningful spiritual life. Nearly as many describe serious shortcomings driven largely by inconsistent staffing, poor communication, and occasional management failures. This bifurcation means outcomes appear highly dependent on which staff are on duty, the resident’s level of acuity (higher-dependency residents seem more vulnerable to lapses), and the family’s ability to monitor and advocate. Memory care and residents with heavy assistance needs drew particular concern regarding staffing adequacy.
Bottom line: Saint Therese at St. Mary of the Woods offers many strengths—an attractive facility, active spiritual programming, strong rehab/therapy in many cases, and individually praised caregivers and social workers. At the same time, persistent reports of understaffing, inconsistent aide performance, missed hygiene/medication, falls, poor incident communication, and managerial issues present real safety and quality-of-care risks. Families considering this facility should weigh the facility’s aesthetic, spiritual, and therapy advantages against the documented variability in daily nursing and aide care. For potential residents who need short-term, focused rehabilitation or who are relatively independent, reviews suggest the facility can perform very well. For those requiring continuous, hands-on assistance or memory care, reviewers recommend close oversight, asking detailed questions about staffing levels and supervision, reviewing incident reporting and escalation policies, and considering alternatives if recent staffing or clinical-safety issues are not transparently addressed.
