Overall sentiment: The aggregated reviews present a strongly negative picture of Columbus Healthcare Center with recurring and serious concerns about quality of care, cleanliness, staffing, communication, and management. While reviewers do acknowledge pockets of competent and compassionate employees (notably a social worker named Thelma, several therapists, specific nurses like Ashley and an African male nurse, and some aides), these positive notes are relatively rare and overshadowed by numerous reports of neglect, safety issues, and administrative failures.
Care quality and clinical issues: Many reviewers describe substantive clinical failures: medication errors (missing meds, wrong patient administration, misplaced sign-out sheets), wound mismanagement, development of bedsores, and sepsis that required hospital transfers. There are multiple accounts of residents being left in soiled diapers or bodily fluids for extended periods, delayed or omitted medications (including morning meds), and wounds left unbandaged. These problems are often accompanied by accusations that staff are inattentive, asleep on duty, or otherwise unable to meet basic care needs. A number of reports indicate that weekend or off-shift staff were unaware of patient conditions, and some reviews describe tragic outcomes including deaths tied to alleged lapses in care.
Staff behavior, professionalism and safety: Reviews repeatedly characterize staff conduct as unprofessional and, at times, abusive. Reported behaviors include rudeness, yelling, pushing visitors, staff-to-staff physical altercations, spitting incidents, and allegations of intoxication on duty. Call lights going unanswered and staff literally sleeping while calls are active are frequent complaints. Some reviewers report that a minority of employees are excellent and compassionate, but those individuals appear inconsistent by shift and are often described as exceptions rather than the norm. Language barriers with some Somali staff and difficulty understanding certain nurses are also noted, compounding communication problems.
Cleanliness and facility conditions: Numerous reviewers describe persistent filth and unsanitary conditions: pervasive smells of urine and feces, trash and spills in hallways and rooms, flies on food trays, milk or food left spilled and uncleaned, and rooms not cleaned upon admission. Reports of missing or poor-quality DME (durable medical equipment), stolen or missing personal items (clothing, remote controls, quilts, money), and overall “deplorable” home conditions contributed strongly to family members’ dissatisfaction and concern for resident safety and dignity.
Dining and nutrition: Meal quality and nutrition are recurring concerns. Reviewers describe cold, lukewarm, unappetizing food, inadequate dietitian care or failure to meet dietary needs, and consequent weight loss for some residents. Tray issues (flies, spills) and the general quality of meals were mentioned multiple times, fueling family worries about residents’ nutritional status and well-being.
Communication and management: Families report systemic communication failures: unanswered phone calls, no in-room phones, management and nursing that are difficult to reach, and failure to notify families about important changes (such as transfers to a COVID unit). There are repeated complaints about poor front office responsiveness, miscoordination with insurers or therapy providers, and dishonesty or lack of cooperation with emergency responders. Several reviewers indicated they plan to contact ombudsmen or regulators, and others recommended investigating the facility thoroughly before placement.
Rehabilitation and therapy: Accounts of therapy services are mixed but skew negative overall. Some reviewers praised therapists, but others reported major coordination problems (therapy not provided due to insurer/administrative failure), therapy mistakes with significant consequences, and weekend staff unaware of patient therapy needs. These inconsistencies raise concerns about the facility’s ability to provide reliable post-acute or restorative services.
Safety, regulation, and legal concerns: Multiple reviews mention potentially reportable issues—abuse allegations, theft, neglect leading to hospitalization or death, and possible licensure concerns. Additional safety concerns include lack of surveillance (no cameras), staff physical altercations, and staff refusal to assist visitors. COVID-related problems were also cited: restricted visitation and reports of staff testing positive for COVID-19. Some reviewers urged that the facility should be investigated or even shut down.
Positive exceptions and variability: Despite pervasive negative reports, a subset of reviewers had positive experiences: staff who were caring, therapists who helped, and isolated instances where issues were promptly fixed. A few reviewers offered overall praise or would recommend the facility based on their specific interactions. This suggests considerable variability in quality by shift, department, or individual staff member.
Recommendations for families and next steps: The reviews indicate that prospective residents and family members should exercise caution. If considering placement, visitors should inspect cleanliness, review wound care protocols, ask directly about staffing ratios and shift coverage, verify communication procedures (in-room phones, contact persons), confirm therapy scheduling and insurer coordination, and obtain written policies about personal item security and notification for transfers. Families should also monitor skin integrity, medication administration records, and housekeeping frequently. Given the number and severity of complaints, those with significant care needs or frailty may wish to consider alternative options and to check regulatory records and recent inspection reports. Finally, while pockets of competent and caring staff exist, the frequency and severity of systemic problems reported across reviewers justify careful scrutiny, ongoing oversight, and, where appropriate, reporting to oversight agencies.
