These reviews present a highly polarized and volatile picture of Daughters of Miriam Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation. Across the corpus there are repeated reports of excellent, compassionate clinicians and successful rehabilitative stays, but an equally large and distressing set of accounts describing systemic understaffing, neglect, safety lapses, and management failures. The strongest positive themes center on individual caregivers and therapy staff who are described as professional, attentive, and effective; several specific staff members (Danielle, Marie, Tori Payne, Emanuel) and the activities director (Traci/Tracie) are singled out for praise. Multiple reviewers report good therapy outcomes, meaningful activities, a clean and attractive building in some units, on-site amenities (deli/shop), and a sense that new leadership has begun to improve operations in certain areas. Families who encountered these strong staff consistently describe feeling informed, supported, and grateful for the care provided.
Counterbalancing these positive experiences are frequent, detailed accounts of understaffing and inconsistent care quality. Many reviewers describe long delays in responding to call bells (reports of waits over an hour), residents left unattended in toilets or wheelchairs for extended periods, and staff appearing overworked or using phones during care. Nursing aide care is often criticized as poor or neglectful, with reports of unclean gowns, soiled bedding, missing or mishandled laundry, and residents not being dressed or fed. There are repeated specific safety incidents: delayed or missing medications (including immunosuppressants and IV initiation), catheters left unemptied for long periods, delayed bathroom assistance, falls and alleged drops leading to injury, and reports of bedsores, wound infections and sepsis. Infection control lapses (lack of PPE, inadequate hand hygiene, exposed residents) are also mentioned.
Communication and management are major themes of concern. Many reviews report unresponsive administration, promises not kept, poor coordination during admissions and discharges, and billing/financial priorities that appear to override patient safety. Discharge planning problems include patients sent home without vital medications or oxygen and poor handoffs to families. Reviewers described difficulties getting orders processed (preadmission orders not completed), pharmacy coordination failures, transportation no-shows, and missed external appointments. Some families filed complaints with state agencies, the Ombudsman, and legal counsel; reviewers mention lawsuits and even allegations of criminal conduct (e.g., falsified COVID tests) in the facility's history. At the same time a subset of reviewers reported recent, positive management engagement: new leadership, agency-free staffing, proactive problem-solving, and tangible improvements in care quality and responsiveness.
Staffing patterns and variability by shift are a notable pattern. Several reviewers point out that care and supervision tend to be better during weekdays or certain shifts and significantly worse on weekends and second shift. High turnover and use of agency or temporary staff were linked to inconsistency in care and clinical knowledge; conversely, reviewers who encountered stable, familiar staff reported much better experiences. Social work and some administrative staff are described as uncaring by certain families, while STNAs and housekeeping receive empathy-based praise even when systemic failures occur.
Dining, activities and environment show mixed reports. Some families value the activities program and praise food quality (one reviewer rated meals 4/5), and many noted the facility is attractive and clean in parts. Others report poor meal delivery, watered-down food, missing breakfasts, and limited dietary choices. Laundry and property management problems—lost or stolen clothes, garments reappearing in back closets—are recurrent and aggravate family trust issues.
Overall sentiment is deeply mixed and highly polarized: some reviewers describe the facility as 'top notch' with excellent therapy and nursing that restored residents' function and provided peace of mind, while others label it 'horrible', alleging systemic neglect, safety incidents, infections, and even death. The most actionable patterns from these reviews are (1) serious and repeated concerns about understaffing and inconsistent clinical practice leading to safety risks, (2) management and communication problems that exacerbate incidents and frustrate families, and (3) pockets of strong clinical and rehab excellence, particularly where staff are stable and leadership is engaged. Prospective families should weigh the facility's rehabilitative strengths and some recent signs of improvement against the numerous reports of safety lapses, inconsistent care depending on shift, and administrative unresponsiveness. If considering placement, potential residents and families should ask about current staffing ratios (including weekend/second-shift coverage), incident and infection-control records, medication management protocols, the facility's response to past regulatory complaints, and whether the positive leadership changes noted in some reviews are sustained and systemic rather than limited to isolated units or short timeframes.
