Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed to polarized. Many reviewers praise individual staff members, therapy teams, and specific floors or units for compassionate, professional care and strong rehabilitation outcomes. However, a substantial portion of reviews describe serious, recurring problems tied to staffing shortages, inconsistent care, and safety or hygiene failures. The pattern suggests the facility is capable of delivering high-quality care in some circumstances (notably therapy and certain named staff members), but that these strengths are undermined by operational and staffing inconsistencies that have led to harm or near-harm in multiple accounts.
Care quality and staff: Reviewers repeatedly note exemplary care from specific nurses, therapists, and care coordinators (Scott, Gwen, Sarah, Rhonda, Joanne, Jose M, and several PT/OT/RT staff). Rehabilitation services and respiratory care are highlighted as strong points; many families report successful recoveries and responsive therapy teams. Conversely, many reviews describe long waits for assistance (including waits of up to two hours while on the toilet), missed or delayed medications, rough handling by some third-shift aides, failure to provide hygiene care (no showers, bedding not changed for extended periods), and instances where neglect allegedly led to medical deterioration or surgery. Medication problems are described in multiple ways — delays/refusals, wrong medications taken, and overmedication causing drowsiness and drooling — and there are reports of poor pain management and mishandled nosebleeds. These are serious concerns and have prompted some families to file state complaints.
Facilities and safety: The physical facility earns mixed feedback. Many reviewers describe the campus as clean, well-managed, and secure, emphasizing guards, video surveillance, electric doors, and locked entry at night. The presence of a chapel, attractive activity rooms, barber/hairdresser services, on-site dialysis, and multiple dining rooms is appreciated. At the same time, complaints include occasional urine odor in hallways (noted to have been resolved in at least one instance), dim lighting, hot conditions in some areas, mold and filthy floors in others, and the building feeling old or not homey. Safety-related issues extend beyond cleanliness: reviewers report oxygen not being adjusted to comfort, missing belongings with no inventory process, and other lapses that create heightened risk for certain residents.
Dining and activities: Activity programming is a consistent positive — bingo, arts and crafts, exercises, and daily Mass are valued, as is an active volunteer program. Dining feedback is variable: some reviews praise good meals and cafeteria cleanliness, while others describe poor food quality (examples include grey mashed sweet potatoes, spoiled chicken, and a salty hot dog served to the wrong diet). Several reviewers explicitly call out serious improvement needed in meals. Thus, food services appear inconsistent: acceptable or good for some residents and unacceptable for others.
Management, communication, and administration: Comments about management and administrative processes are mixed. Some reviewers praise professional, supportive management and efficient admissions staff who help with Medicare and care planning; others experience poor communication, unresponsiveness, scheduling difficulties, and perceived favoritism toward certain staff or higher-ups. Several families reported frustration that management did not advocate adequately during hospital transfers or other critical events. Where staff were responsive and supervisors intervened, some issues (such as hallway odor) were resolved promptly, demonstrating that management can act effectively when engaged.
Patterns and recommendations: The most consistent negative theme across reviews is staffing — both quantity and consistency of staff, especially overnight/third shift aides. Staffing shortages appear to drive many downstream problems: delayed responses, missed hygiene and medication needs, rough handling, and inconsistent supervision. There is also a clear pattern of variability by floor and by individual staff: some floors and teams are described as phenomenal, while others are sources of multiple serious complaints. Families considering this campus should weigh the facility's strong rehab and therapy reputation, clean/secure campus, and some highly praised employees against documented incidents of neglect, medication errors, food quality issues, and communication problems. Prospective residents or families should ask about current staffing levels (including third shift), staff-to-resident ratios, medication safety protocols, incident reporting and resolution procedures, and dining oversight. For existing families, maintaining frequent communication, documenting concerns promptly, and escalating to administration or state authorities if safety issues arise are advisable based on the patterns in these reviews.
Bottom line: St Augustine Health Campus shows clear strengths — compassionate individual staff members, robust therapy services, good security, and active programming — that lead to positive outcomes for many residents. However, significant and recurring issues related to understaffing, inconsistent caregiving (notably on certain shifts), medication and hygiene lapses, and variable food quality are reported often enough to warrant caution. The facility may be a good fit when assigned to well-staffed units and strong care teams, but families should actively evaluate staffing consistency and safety practices before committing and remain vigilant during a stay.
