Overall sentiment about The Mariemont Care Center is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise the facility for excellent rehabilitation services, compassionate caregivers, and strong admissions/marketing support, while an equally strong set of reviews raise serious safety, staffing, cleanliness, and communication concerns. The recurring pattern is one of extremes — many families and former residents describe outstanding therapy outcomes, attentive nurses and aides, and a warm, collaborative environment; other families report neglectful care, hygiene failures, and threats to resident safety. This divergence appears tied to unit-level differences, staffing levels, and changes in management over time.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Reviews repeatedly emphasize two contrasting experiences. On the positive side, physical and occupational therapy receive consistently high marks: reviewers describe a large therapy gym, successful rehabilitation stays, excellent PT/OT staff who help patients regain mobility, and glowing endorsements of rehab outcomes. Conversely, multiple reviewers report serious clinical lapses — residents left unbathed, not repositioned, not given pain medication, developing bedsores or foot wounds that went unaddressed, missed toileting leading to soiling, and at least one unreported fall. These reports suggest inconsistent nursing and aide practices and raise potential safety and regulatory concerns for certain residents or units.
Staffing, staff behavior and culture: Staff are a central theme and are described in sharply different terms. Many reviews praise individual staff members and teams as kind, compassionate, dignified, and collaborative — including nurses, receptionists, maintenance, and the admissions marketing team (several mentions by name). Multiple reviews state that staff “go above and beyond,” listen to families, and work with physicians and therapists in care planning. However, a significant portion of reviews report understaffing that leads to overworked, under-motivated, or under-qualified caregivers. Complaints include aides who do not change beds or supply pull-ups, RNs perceived as underqualified or uncommitted, rude or mean employees, and staff who don’t respond to call lights. Several reviews attribute improved care to active family oversight, implying that staffing issues and inconsistent supervision are driving substandard care in some cases.
Facilities, cleanliness and infection control: The facility’s physical plant is described as historic and dated (a former hospital) with plans or promises to renovate. Positive reports call the building clean, well-maintained, and comfortable with large rooms, private suites, and a pleasant view of Mariemont. Negative reviews, however, describe filthy conditions, bedbugs, unclean rooms, unchanged sheets, and residents with sores — serious cleanliness allegations that overlap with accounts of inadequate wound care and infection control lapses. A few reviewers praised COVID-related safety diligence and family updates, but other reports raise infection and wound-care concerns. This split suggests variability across units, shifts, or time periods.
Management, communication and transparency: Opinions about management vary. Some reviewers specifically praise knowledgeable leadership, a passionate team, and a responsive admissions director (several mentions of positive interactions with admissions/marketing staff). There are also accounts stating that under new management the facility improved and that leadership worked collaboratively with families. Conversely, multiple reviews allege poor communication, lack of transparency, dishonesty, and even calls to regulatory authorities. Specific operational complaints include limited phone access (no phones in rooms, few phone lines), difficulty reaching staff, and inadequate case management. Reports of residents’ falls not being reported and family members planning to file complaints with the health board point to serious breakdowns in transparency for some families.
Dining, activities and community life: Many reviewers praise the food as appetizing, balanced, and appropriately portioned, while others call the food horrible. Activity programming is frequently cited as a strength — reviewers note lots of activities, spiritual support, and a family-like atmosphere for some residents. The facility’s dementia unit and separate programming for different levels of care are seen as positives, and several reviewers highlight meaningful social interaction and timely, attentive care during rehab stays.
Notable patterns and risks: Several consistent patterns emerge. First, understaffing is repeatedly tied to most negative outcomes — missed care, dirty rooms, slow responses, and increased family intervention. Second, the facility appears to be inconsistent: some reviewers report an excellent, compassionate, clinically competent environment, while others report conditions that they believe are dangerous. Third, management transitions are mentioned as a turning point in both directions (some reviewers note improvement under new management; others report chronic problems and recommend avoiding the facility). Finally, there are isolated but serious allegations — theft among residents, bedbugs, unreported falls, and wound neglect — that raise red flags and would warrant further verification via state inspection reports or direct observation.
Bottom line: The Mariemont Care Center receives both strong praise and harsh criticism. Its strengths are evident in rehab outcomes, devoted and caring staff in many accounts, effective admissions and marketing support, and a range of services and amenities (large rooms, dementia unit, activities). The primary weaknesses are chronic understaffing in some units/shifts, inconsistent clinical care (including reports of neglect and wound-care failures), cleanliness and pest allegations, and variable communication/transparency from management. These mixed reviews suggest that prospective residents and families should investigate recent state inspection reports, ask for current staffing ratios, tour the specific unit in question, and speak with current families and leadership about recent changes and corrective actions before making placement decisions.
