The reviews present a highly polarized and inconsistent portrait of Crestmont North Nursing. A significant portion of reviewers describe serious problems with staff behavior, care responsiveness, cleanliness, maintenance, and administrative practices. At the same time, other reviewers report positive experiences—calling out caring staff, a family-owned atmosphere, and signs that certain parts of the facility are improving. Taken together, the pattern is one of uneven quality: pockets of acceptable or even good care exist alongside repeated examples of neglect and poor management.
Care quality and staff behavior are the most frequently cited issues. Numerous reports describe nursing staff as uncaring, unskilled, or rude. Specific allegations include staff using curse words, mocking residents, being rough during care, and showing power-trip behavior (including a reported nurse tantrum and rude interactions with EMS). Several reviewers say staff are distracted—often using cell phones—and that call bells and chair alarms go unanswered or are delayed; these failures were framed as direct safety concerns and contributors to resident neglect. Conversely, reviews from other families and residents describe staff who are helpful, go the extra mile, and provide caring attention, suggesting high variability depending on which staff members or shifts are involved.
Facility cleanliness and physical maintenance are recurring themes. Many reviewers report dirty floors and walls, stained furniture, torn drapes, soiled products left in drawers or trash, and a generally run-down appearance. Maintenance needs were frequently described: carpet cleaning, patched holes that need sanding and painting, window and door cleaning, and other cosmetic/upkeep work. Yet some reviewers counter that certain areas are very clean and that cleaning staff have been above-and-beyond in their efforts. These conflicting accounts again point to inconsistency—some wings or shifts may be better maintained than others.
Administrative and documentation problems are severe in a number of accounts. Reviews mention lost Power of Attorney (POA) paperwork and misplaced Medicaid documents, with instances where POA forms were not uploaded to electronic records and nursing staff had to retrieve documents manually from paper charts. These lapses raise concerns about records management, communication with families, and the facility’s administrative controls. Several reviewers explicitly called for investigation or closure based on these administrative and care failures.
Dining and nutrition are mixed topics in the reviews. Multiple reviewers report unpleasant or inedible meals and mismanagement of diet restrictions. Others say the food has been improving. Hydration also came up as a specific medical concern—reviewers noted lack of attention to resident hydration and an elevated dehydration risk. Combined with reports of ignored call bells and slow response times, nutritional and hydration care appear to be an area needing attention.
Safety and behavior management are additional red flags. Reviewers described yelling or unruly residents and said staff sometimes failed to intervene appropriately. Ignored chair alarms and delayed responses to call buttons were emphasized as concrete safety failures that increase fall and injury risk. These safety concerns, along with allegations of rough handling and mocking, create a picture of inconsistent supervision and training.
Overall sentiment is deeply mixed but leans toward concern. The most frequent and serious patterns are: unprofessional or uncaring staff conduct, delayed or absent responses to resident calls, poor cleanliness and maintenance, administrative mismanagement (lost paperwork and inconsistent information), and dining/nutrition problems. Offsetting those concerns are repeated—but less numerous—comments praising specific staff members, describing a family-like ownership/atmosphere, noting cleanliness in parts of the building, and reporting improvements in food and facility condition.
Implications and next steps for a prospective resident or family: the reviews suggest strong variability by staff, shift, and area of the building, so an in-person tour, conversations with multiple families, and a review of the facility’s most recent state inspection and complaint history are advisable. If these reviews reflect current conditions, priority improvements would include staff training and supervision (professional conduct, call-response protocols, alarm management), administrative controls around documentation, targeted maintenance and cleaning, and closer oversight of dining and hydration practices. The presence of both very negative and very positive reports indicates that while there are capable and caring employees at Crestmont North, systemic and consistency issues undermine overall reliability of care.
