Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed, with a strong polarization between families who experienced excellent, compassionate rehabilitation and long-term care and those who reported serious safety, staffing, and management failures. Many reviewers praise individual nurses, aides, therapists, and members of the leadership team — describing them as caring, professional, knowledgeable, and instrumental in successful recoveries. At the same time a substantial number of reviews document repeated and serious concerns: falls, medication mishandling, unresponsive administration, cleanliness lapses, and inconsistent staff competence. This creates an uneven portrait of Cedarview Rehabilitation & Nursing Care in which quality appears to vary widely depending on staff on duty, the unit involved, and the time period (with some reviewers noting declines after COVID).
Care quality and safety are the most prominent themes. Positive reports emphasize effective, intense therapy programs, successful rehabilitation outcomes, and teamwork that enabled residents to return home. These accounts frequently cite therapy staff as compassionate and skilled, and note that multidisciplinary coordination and respectful nursing care produced measurable improvements. Conversely, many negative reviews describe repeated falls (some causing ED visits, hip surgery, head injuries, or stitches), instances of medication not being given or being withheld, and unsafe handling/lifting by staff. Specific incidents — such as a trach patient receiving dangerous instructions, or a resident falling out of a bed with insufficient safety measures — underline systemic safety concerns. Several comments also point to regulatory constraints (state rules about side rails/alarms) complicating safety-vs-freedom trade-offs, but families nonetheless report that practical safeguards were often lacking or inconsistently applied.
Staff behavior and staffing levels are recurring sources of praise and complaint. Numerous reviews single out exceptional staff members (nurses, CNAs, therapists, and administrators) and describe a family-like culture with long-tenured employees who genuinely care for residents. These positive experiences emphasize friendliness, dignity, individualized attention, and staff going above and beyond. At the same time, many families report chronic understaffing, rushed caregivers, rude or unprofessional behavior (yelling, gossiping, trash-talk), and even allegations of staff impairment. Inconsistency is a key pattern: the same facility is described as staffed by both dedicated professionals and problematic employees. This inconsistency contributes to distrust among families and to variable resident outcomes.
Communication, administration, and operational reliability are additional problem areas. Several reviewers noted poor or delayed communication about falls, hospital transfers, and changes in condition. Families also reported unanswered phone calls, misrouted paperwork, failures to transfer medical records or heart-monitor data, and delays in providing basic items (TV remotes, clothing return). Financial concerns were raised as well — families cited reimbursement disputes, pressure from social workers to stay, and opaque billing practices. A lack of outreach after a resident's death and perceived indifference from administration have also exacerbated family distress in some cases.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and dining/activities present mixed reports. Some reviewers describe clean, orderly rooms, attentive housekeeping, good food, and meaningful activities that promote individuality and social engagement (including special events like holiday dinners). Others, however, describe cigarette odors, dirt on floors, patched walls, soiled clothing left on residents in public areas, and generally run-down conditions. Dining quality varies: a number of reviews praise the meals and social dining experiences, while others call the food terrible and note restrictions or fees for bringing in outside food. Activity programming and therapy are generally noted as strengths when staffing levels and management support are present.
Notable patterns and recommendations from these reviews: positive outcomes tend to correlate with strong, stable staffing, proactive communication, and engaged therapy teams. Negative outcomes cluster around understaffing, staff turnover or untrained personnel, communication breakdowns, and lax safety practices. For families evaluating Cedarview, it would be prudent to ask about current staffing ratios, fall-prevention protocols, how medication administration is audited, recent incident reports, and the process for handling personal belongings and medical record transfers. Management responsiveness and a willingness to transparently address safety incidents emerge as critical differentiators. Given the frequency and severity of the negative safety-related reports, families and advocates should consider verifying recent inspection reports, speaking with current family members of residents in the same unit, and escalating serious concerns to the local ombudsman or regulatory authorities when warranted.
In summary, Cedarview shows clear strengths — notably dedicated clinicians, strong rehabilitation outcomes for many residents, and a warm, family-like atmosphere praised by many. However, review patterns also indicate serious and recurring problems in safety, staffing consistency, communication, facility maintenance, and administration. The facility has potential to deliver excellent care but would benefit from more consistent staffing, stronger safety and medication protocols, improved administrative responsiveness, and better laundry/personal-item handling to ensure that positive experiences are reliably reproduced across all residents and shifts.
