Overall sentiment about Crawford Manor Health Care Center is strongly polarized: several reviews describe an excellent, well-run facility especially for short-term rehabilitation stays, while other reviews report serious and alarming neglect and safety failures for some long-term residents. Positive accounts emphasize compassionate caregivers, strong therapy/rehabilitation capabilities, organized activities, and cleanliness; negative accounts allege neglect, understaffing, poor hygiene, security lapses, and unprofessional conduct. The coexistence of these divergent perspectives is the dominant theme across the reviews.
Care quality and staffing: Multiple reviewers praise individual caregivers and nursing staff as caring, attentive, and communicative. Several reviewers specifically note proactive communication with families, detailed care conferences, and staff who step up after incidents such as falls. Positive comments also highlight good leadership, teamwork, competent assistants, and named staff members who provided exemplary care. Conversely, a number of reviews describe staffing shortages, aides running between jobs, and staff who appear distracted or unprofessional (e.g., using phones in the lobby). More seriously, there are accounts of long-term neglect including no linen changes for extended periods, lack of incontinence care, missed showers, and overall failures to provide basic hygiene. These negative reports suggest inconsistent staff performance and possible understaffing that affects quality of care.
Facilities, safety, and cleanliness: Several reviewers describe the facility as very clean, safe, and well-maintained, with outstanding cleanliness and an organized environment for residents and staff. The admissions experience and tours are noted as welcoming, and private rooms and an impressive therapy room are cited as strengths. Contrastingly, other reviewers report dirty bed covers, flies around patients, and broader cleanliness problems. There are serious safety and security concerns in at least one account involving a resident who walked out, was missing for hours, and returned beaten and injured; this review also reports a lack of accountability or apology. Additional safety-related complaints include call buttons or patient phones being hidden or inaccessible and smoking occurring in the lobby. These mixed reports point to variability in unit-level oversight and enforcement of policies.
Dining and activities: Reviews indicate a mix of strong and weak experiences with dining and programming. Positive comments mention a chef willing to accept meal suggestions, residents being well-fed on time, and some reviewers describing the food as 'awesome.' The facility is also credited for daily activities such as music, puzzles, drawing and coloring, comic-book drawing, and church services, with staff-organized programming and holiday celebrations contributing to resident engagement. At the same time, some reviewers were dissatisfied with food quality, suggesting inconsistency in meal satisfaction across stays or residents.
Management, communication, and accountability: Several reviews praise proactive communication from staff and good coordination among service providers. Admissions and therapy staff receive positive mentions for being informative and personable. However, there are repeated calls for improved oversight, internal checks, and management review to address serious lapses reported in other reviews. Notably, some reviewers describe an absence of accountability after incidents (no apology or corrective action), which raises concerns about incident response protocols and leadership follow-through.
Patterns and interpretation: The most salient pattern is high variability—some families and residents report excellent rehab-focused care, cleanliness, and responsive staff, while others describe severe neglect, safety breaches, and unprofessional conduct. This suggests that experiences may differ by unit, shift, or individual staff members, and that systemic issues such as staffing shortages and inconsistent supervision may be contributing factors. Positive reviewer emphasis on specific staff and leadership indicates that when staffing and oversight are strong, outcomes and satisfaction follow; where those elements are lacking, very poor outcomes including neglect and safety incidents occur.
Recommendations implied by reviewers: While reviewers did not all offer formal recommendations, the recurring themes imply the need for stronger staffing levels, consistent cleanliness and hygiene protocols, improved security and monitoring (especially for residents at risk of elopement), transparent incident reporting and accountability, and regular internal audits or oversight to reduce variability. Families considering Crawford Manor should be aware of the mixed experiences: many find it excellent for rehabilitation and appreciate particular staff and services, but others report serious and unacceptable failures in long-term care contexts. Prospective families may want to ask specific questions about staffing ratios, recent incidents and how they were handled, unit-level cleanliness audits, and visitation/tour impressions to better assess which experience is more likely for their loved one.
