Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers praise individual caregivers, therapy staff, and some members of management, describing a core of compassionate, long-standing staff who provide meaningful, family-like care and strong rehabilitation services. At the same time, numerous serious operational and environmental concerns are repeatedly raised: an aging, poorly maintained facility, cleanliness and pest problems, inconsistent leadership behavior, substantial staffing and supply shortfalls, and several alarming clinical and administrative incidents. The combination of very positive staff-level comments and very negative facility- and systems-level critiques creates a picture of a nursing home with strong human assets but significant institutional weaknesses.
Staff and care quality are central themes. Positive reports highlight caring, hardworking STNAs, nurses, therapists, and aides who form a reliable and supportive presence for residents. Therapy and rehabilitation services receive specific compliments as an area of strength, and many reviewers emphasize that residents are treated like family and that staff longevity contributes to continuity of care. Some reviewers describe the work environment as meaningful for healthcare skill development and note family legacy connections to the facility. Conversely, other reviews allege mistreatment, neglect, or clinical lapses — examples include ignored chest pain, an alleged misdiagnosis of pneumonia as anxiety, and delayed transfers to the hospital. These clinical complaints are serious and suggest risk to resident safety when systems and staffing are strained.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and safety issues appear frequently. Multiple reviewers report that the building is old and in need of renovation, with several describing bad smells, visible filth, and pest sightings (bugs/roaches). Housekeeping shortages are cited, correlating with the perceived decline in cleanliness. Security and reception problems are also noted: a front desk that is sometimes unstaffed, a poor phone system with repeated disconnections, and instances where residents could leave and return freely — all creating concerns about resident safety and accountability. One review even described being accused of sole responsibility when a person went missing, which underscores strained processes and poor communication around incidents.
Operational concerns include staffing levels, supply availability, and communication. Repeated comments about inadequate staffing include heavy medication passes with only one nurse on a floor and staff reportedly lacking necessary supplies to provide care. Communication issues extend from day-to-day miscommunication between employees to systemic problems contacting higher authority — examples include employees using personal phones for work and specific staff members (one named in reviews) being unhelpful when contacted. Some reviewers praised engaged, interactive management teams and recent organizational improvements under new leadership (Sam, Keva, DON, Jennifer ADON), but others report rude, uncaring administrators — indicating inconsistency in leadership and management culture.
Dining and housekeeping feedback is mixed. A number of reviewers criticize meals as unappealing or horrible, while others state food is improving. Housekeeping is another divided area: complimented by those who see a clean environment and criticized by many who see shortages and poor conditions. Activities and behavioral health supports are highlighted as strengths by several reviewers; the facility appears to have a behavioral health focus and partnerships with external agencies (Alliant, ViaQuest), which some families and staff regard as valuable community resources.
There are also troubling administrative allegations in a minority of reviews: refusal to answer the phone, misuse of services, alleged pocketing of patients' money, and sending patients to an unlicensed facility. These claims are serious but appear alongside many other, more positive accounts; they point to potential outlier incidents or systemic governance shortcomings that warrant investigation by oversight bodies or family advocates.
In summary, Cityview Healthcare & Rehabilitation emerges from these reviews as a facility with significant internal strengths tied to committed direct-care staff and strong rehabilitation programs, but also substantial and recurring weaknesses in infrastructure, cleanliness, staffing, supply chain, communication systems, and some aspects of clinical oversight and management consistency. The reviews suggest the facility is in transition for some reviewers — with named new leadership and reported improvements — yet other reviewers experienced or witnessed conditions they describe as dangerous or unacceptable. Families and prospective staff should weigh the positive reports about individual caregivers and therapies against the documented concerns about environment, staffing, communication, and specific serious incidents. Addressing facility maintenance, housekeeping, staffing ratios, phone/front-desk reliability, and clinical oversight would likely reduce the most severe criticisms and better align the facility’s strong staff-driven culture with safe, consistent operations.
