Overall impression: Reviews for Concord Care Center of Cortland are highly polarized and indicate a facility with significant variation in resident experience. Several reviewers praise staff, leadership, dining, and the physical environment, while an almost equally large set of reviews describe serious clinical, safety, and cleanliness problems. The pattern suggests inconsistent performance across shifts, teams, or patient cohorts rather than uniformly positive or uniformly negative care.
Care quality and clinical concerns: A recurring theme in negative reviews is delayed or inadequate clinical attention. Multiple summaries allege nurses did not call doctors promptly, residents went without adequate nutrition for days, and some short stays ended in hospital readmission. There are reports of missed or unattended cancer-related appointments and other instances of neglect. These accounts raise red flags about clinical responsiveness, care coordination, and oversight. Conversely, other reviewers explicitly praise individual nurses and describe "quality care" and staff who treat residents like family. This contrast indicates care quality may depend heavily on which staff members are on duty.
Staff, management, and communication: Reviews show a split view of staff and leadership. Several reviewers singled out the administrator and the DON for praise (including a named positive mention of Diane Stetson), and some families expressed gratitude, saying staff went "the extra mile." At the same time, a significant number of reviews describe unprofessional or rude staff behavior and slow response times. Communication issues are frequent: poor phone access, families not being informed of critical changes (including a reported failure to notify family of a resident's death), HIPAA-related restrictions used as a barrier to family input, and general lack of apologies or updates after adverse events. There are also repeated complaints about an apparent administrative focus on insurance/Medicaid and related paperwork delays, which some reviewers feel interferes with timely care.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Several reviews contain troubling, specific cleanliness complaints—stink bugs on windows, persistent foul odors, a visible fecal smudge left on the floor for days, garbage cans without liners, and dirty gloves left on the floor. These reports are serious because they bear on infection control, dignity, and resident safety. Yet other reviewers describe the building as clean and beautiful with scenic outdoor spaces. This stark divergence suggests inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance practices or variable inspection/enforcement across areas or shifts.
Dining and atmosphere: Dietary services receive relatively consistent praise in many reviews; meals are described as "amazing and delicious," and dietary staff are noted for going above and beyond. Multiple reviewers also described a family-oriented environment where staff treat residents like family and the facility can feel like home. These positive aspects are important strengths and may represent areas where the facility performs reliably well.
Patterns and implications: The most salient pattern is inconsistency. When reviewers describe positive experiences, they highlight compassionate staff, strong administrative leadership, good meals, and a pleasant physical environment. When reviews are negative, they point to lapses in clinical responsiveness, serious cleanliness and safety issues, breakdowns in communication, and administrative/process problems related to Medicaid and paperwork. Taken together, these reviews suggest that resident outcomes and family satisfaction at Concord Care Center of Cortland may depend heavily on specific staff members, times of day, or case management processes. The allegations of missed appointments, failure to call physicians, delayed assistance, and poor hygiene are particularly significant and warrant further investigation by prospective residents, families, or regulators.
Bottom line: Prospective residents and families should weigh both sides—there are clear strengths (compassionate staff at times, praised leadership, very good meals, and attractive grounds) but also serious, recurring complaints about clinical responsiveness, communication, and sanitation. These mixed reports recommend careful, specific questions prior to admission (staffing levels and ratios, incident reporting and notification protocols, infection-control and housekeeping procedures, how medical appointments are coordinated, and how Medicaid-related paperwork is managed) and ongoing monitoring if choosing this facility.
