Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive around direct caregiving and therapy, with recurring concerns about safety, communication, dining, and facility upkeep. Many families and residents praise the warmth and attentiveness of front-line staff — nurses, aides, therapists, and activities personnel frequently receive high marks. Physical and occupational therapy are repeatedly described as outstanding, with measurable progress, individualized programs, and faster-than-expected discharges to home. Activities and common spaces are highlighted as strengths: frequent social programming (bingo, music, holiday events), a dedicated activities director, pleasant lounges with fish tanks and birds, patios, a fenced-in backyard, library area, exercise equipment, and an on-site salon contribute to a social, home-like environment for residents.
Care quality shows a clear split. A substantial number of reviews report excellent clinical care: proper medication administration, chronic-condition monitoring, compassionate hospice involvement, attentive nurses and aides, and staff who learn residents’ names and preferences. These reviewers describe a clean facility, reliable laundry service, private rooms that allow personalization and temperature control, and a generally welcoming atmosphere. Several specific staff members and aides (for example, one named aide was singled out as outstanding) are repeatedly commended, and many families say the center met or exceeded expectations for rehab after procedures like knee replacement.
However, there are notable and serious negative patterns that repeat across reviews. Safety and supervision concerns are prominent: an elopement incident (three times in one day) that prompted an Ohio Department of Health citation is cited explicitly, and other reports describe residents found on the floor and long delays (one review claims a five-hour wait before x-ray). Equipment problems (a non-working bladder ultrasound) and urinary retention issues leading to hospitalization are mentioned. Several reviewers describe delayed or no response to call lights, lack of after-hours nursing supervision, poor charting and RN communication, and inconsistent adherence to care plans — all of which raise clinical-safety red flags that deserve close attention.
Dining receives very mixed feedback. Some reviewers praise the meals and say food was excellent, while others report poor quality lunches/dinners, limited breakfast substitution availability unless requested very early, and problematic substitutions (including an example of two thin slices of bologna on white bread). Meal inconsistency appears to be a recurrent annoyance; families who rely on regular, reliable nutrition for vulnerable residents may find this important.
Staffing and management themes are mixed. Multiple reviews applaud individual staff members and say the administration is responsive and helpful, while other reviewers report unprofessional behavior (rudeness, staff on phones with attitude), instances of alleged dishonesty about medication administration, and management that did not respond to serious family concerns (examples include not attending a funeral or failing to reply after a fall). There are also comments about staff turnover and low pay, which some reviewers link to uneven care quality. Several reviewers advise that the facility may be most appropriate for residents with lower medical needs who have active family involvement and visitation, while higher-acuity cases reported more negative experiences.
Facility condition and amenities are a mixed bag. The center is frequently described as very clean with pleasant common areas and helpful services (salon, laundry, library), but multiple reviewers note that the building feels dated (era about 1998), with limited lighting and electrical outlets in rooms. Some layout points were mentioned — semi-private rooms and shared-bathroom setups — which may matter for privacy-sensitive families.
In summary, The Anderson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center receives strong, consistent praise for its therapy teams, many compassionate and competent front-line staff, rehabilitation outcomes, and social/amenity programming. At the same time, recurring and significant concerns around safety oversight, emergency responsiveness, equipment maintenance, inconsistent dining, communication/management responsiveness, and uneven professionalism should be taken seriously. Prospective families should weigh the strong rehab and activity programs and oft-praised caregivers against the safety and communication incidents reported by other families. For residents requiring intensive medical supervision, the patterns in some reviews suggest careful, specific inquiry into current supervision protocols, after-hours nursing coverage, incident history, and how the facility addressed cited deficiencies. For lower-need residents who will receive regular family visitation and engagement, many reviewers found the atmosphere and care favorable.
