Overall sentiment in the reviews for Lexington Court Care Center is highly mixed, with a substantial number of strongly positive testimonials counterbalanced by a significant set of very serious negative reports. Many families praise the facility for compassionate, personalized care, strong therapy and rehabilitation services, and a welcoming atmosphere. Conversely, other reviewers report severe lapses in basic care, management failures, safety concerns, and inconsistent staffing that in some cases led to clinical harm or family distress.
Care quality and clinical services: A large portion of reviewers highlight excellent therapy (physical and occupational), successful discharge planning, and skilled nursing services such as wound care and rehabilitation that returned residents home. Therapy staff and nursing teams are repeatedly described as “amazing,” “terrific,” or “A+,” and many note that nurses and aides treated residents like family and made personalized accommodations. At the same time, there are multiple serious allegations that physician orders were not followed (notably delayed or denied insulin and dialysis), medications were delayed, and residents were left unattended or in unsafe conditions. These latter reports describe situations that could result in significant clinical events (ICU transfers, risk of sepsis), indicating an uneven standard of care that varies by shift, unit, or period.
Staff, teamwork, and management: Reviews often praise individual staff members, social workers, the director of nursing, and business office personnel for compassion, helpfulness, and clear communication. Several accounts note a family-like culture, staff going above and beyond, and improvements under new administration. Conversely, other reviewers describe an adversarial “click” culture, staff bullying, low morale and burnout, and management that is unresponsive or deceptive. There are also mentions of serious staff misconduct (smoking on site, alleged drug selling in the parking lot) and named instances of rudeness, which raise concerns about supervision, staff screening, and accountability. Staffing levels are a recurring theme—short-staffing and overworked personnel are cited as contributing factors to neglect and poor responsiveness.
Safety, hygiene, and incidents: Positive reviews frequently emphasize a clean facility with no odor and well-kept rooms. Yet multiple reviewers reported hygiene lapses, outbreaks (norovirus), dirty diapers, and other sanitation concerns. Theft and financial complaints (items or money taken from residents’ rooms, prepaid stays without refund) are reported by some families, as are safety issues like residents left on the floor or long delays in bathroom assistance. These allegations point to both operational weaknesses in resident supervision and potentially serious vulnerabilities in facility protocols.
Dining and daily life: Feedback about dining is inconsistent. Some reviewers praised tasty, well-prepared meals and a variety of activities. Others strongly criticized the diet quality and accommodations (insufficient meals, inappropriate menus such as PB&J-only meals, lack of diet beverages, and unexpected weight gain or dietary issues). Activity offerings and movement programs receive positive mentions, with inclusive programming and wildlife-viewing rooms enhancing resident quality of life for some families.
Communication and discharge/administrative services: The business office and discharge planners receive positive comments for helping with insurance, Medicaid, and a smooth transition home. Several reviews specifically noted helpful guidance around hospice and billing. However, complaints about management responsiveness, failure to act on concerns, and inconsistent communication from clinical staff also appear, underlining a split in the perceived effectiveness of administrative leadership.
Patterns and variability: The most salient pattern is high variability in resident experience. Many reviews describe exemplary, compassionate care and strong therapy outcomes, while others recount neglect, safety incidents, and management failures. Some reviewers indicated improvement after leadership changes, suggesting responsiveness to feedback in certain periods. The facility appears capable of high-quality care when staffing, oversight, and leadership are functioning well, but systemic issues—staffing shortages, supervision lapses, inconsistent adherence to orders, and occasional reports of misconduct—create meaningful risk and distress for families.
Bottom line: Prospective families should weigh both the strong positives (robust therapy programs, skilled nursing capabilities, compassionate staff members, and a generally pleasant environment) against the documented risks (reports of neglect, medication/dietary errors, hygiene problems, theft, and concerning staff behavior). Visiting in person, asking specific questions about staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, infection control, incident reporting, and supervision practices, and speaking directly with the current administration and clinical leadership will help clarify whether the facility’s strengths are reliably in place for a given resident and time period.
