Overall impression: Reviews for Forest Hills Healthcare Center are highly polarized, showing a mix of strong praise for individual staff members, activities, and the facility’s appearance, alongside frequent and serious complaints about clinical care, staffing, management, and safety. Many families explicitly describe outstanding, compassionate aides, therapists, and activity staff who provide meaningful engagement and rehabilitation success. Conversely, numerous reviews recount understaffing, medication errors, neglect of basic personal care, unsafe discharges, and communication or administrative failures. The pattern suggests that while pockets of very good care exist, there are systemic and recurring problems that materially impact resident safety and well-being.
Care quality and safety: The most recurrent and severe concerns center on clinical safety and basic caregiving. Multiple reviews document medication errors (wrong medications given, missed doses, delayed analgesics, and under-dosing of critical meds like Synthroid), with at least one suspected overdose requiring Narcan and ER transfer. Delays in medication and pain control are frequently cited (gaps of 12–15 hours for pain meds in some cases). Hygiene and personal care lapses are common in the complaints: residents reportedly went days to months without bathing, had dirty linens or soiled rooms, soiled socks and urine puddles on the floor, and several accounts of bedsores or painful wound care. There are also reports of catheter-care neglect, delayed flushing leading to UTIs, and other infection-control lapses. Falls and poor monitoring are documented, including cases where families were not notified of a fall, and premature or unsafe discharges that led to rehospitalization.
Staffing, turnover, and management: Many reviewers attribute clinical and operational failures to chronic understaffing and high turnover, including heavy reliance on agency or temporary staff and a lack of consistent full-time personnel. This staffing instability correlates with long delays in call-light responses, inadequate supervision, and inconsistent application of policies. Multiple reviewers criticize management—reporting deception, incompetence, or a money-first orientation—and cite specific problematic interactions with administrators, social workers, and reception staff. At the same time, some reviews note an improvement under new leadership (named administrator Kevin), suggesting that leadership changes can and have produced measurable positive effects in some units or time frames.
Communication and coordination: Communication failures appear repeatedly: families received deceptive or evasive explanations about care (for example about IVs or medication errors), were not informed of incidents (falls, transfers), and sometimes faced resistance when attempting to be involved. There are reports of discharge with no medications or paperwork, delayed NP visits, and poor coordination with outside hospitals and pharmacies (including a pharmacy located out of town causing delays). HIPAA concerns and rude or disrespectful comments from staff also erode trust.
Facilities, amenities, and activities: Many reviewers praise the facility’s physical environment—clean common areas, beautiful gardens, a welcoming dining/activities area, movie theater, ice cream shop, and well-kept rooms. The activities program receives strong positive mentions: regular weekday activities, crafts, games, a beauty salon, and engaged activity staff (named individuals received specific gratitude). These programs appear to provide meaningful quality-of-life benefits for many residents and volunteers. However, reviewers who experienced poor care note that amenities and aesthetics are sometimes used to mask deficits in clinical care and staffing, describing a pleasant facade that hides unsafe or neglectful practices.
Food and dining: Food quality and meal delivery are frequent pain points. Reports include unappetizing meals, missing trays or missed meals, hostile kitchen staff, and multiple accounts of trays being missing or trays arriving without proper assistance offered. Yet some reviewers also report good or improved food and positive dining experiences—again underscoring wide variability in experience.
Variability and polarization: A dominant theme across the reviews is inconsistency. Several families describe Forest Hills as exceptional—citing attentive nurses and aides, successful rehabilitations, and excellent management—while others report serious neglect, abuse, and preventable medical errors. This split suggests that the resident experience may depend heavily on unit/wing, shift, specific staff members, and timing (with some reviewers noting improvements after management changes). Named staff frequently receive high praise, which implies that individual caregivers can significantly shape outcomes.
Patterns requiring attention: The reviews collectively highlight recurring safety and regulatory concerns: medication mismanagement, inadequate personal care/hygiene, infection risks, falls, improper discharges, and poor emergency readiness. Repeated mention of understaffing and agency dependence point to systemic workforce issues. Administrative opacity, conflicts over billing or eviction threats, and allegations of theft or HIPAA breaches further indicate governance and oversight problems. Where leadership and certain staff are strong, outcomes appear much better—evidence that targeted improvements in staffing, training, supervision, and transparent communication could materially improve resident outcomes.
Conclusion: Forest Hills Healthcare Center presents a mixed profile. The facility offers many tangible positives—clean, attractive surroundings, robust activity programming, and numerous compassionate caregivers who deliver excellent care. However, the volume and seriousness of negative reports (medication errors, neglect, poor discharge practices, understaffing, and management problems) are significant and recurring. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strengths against the documented risks, verify current leadership and staffing levels, ask for references from recent families, and plan for active advocacy and monitoring if choosing this facility. The experience appears highly dependent on specific staff, leadership at the time, and unit-level conditions; instances of improvement under new administration are promising but not yet uniformly reflected across all reviews.
