Overall sentiment is highly polarized: reviews contain both strong praise for portions of the staff and serious, sometimes shocking allegations of neglect and misconduct. Multiple reviewers praise individual employees and departments, successful rehabilitation outcomes, and specific aspects of operations like admission tours and activities. Conversely, several reviews allege grave safety failures, poor hygiene, and managerial or staff dishonesty. These conflicting impressions indicate significant variability in resident experience, with some families reporting excellent care while others report life‑threatening lapses.
Care quality and safety: The reviews present two distinct narratives about clinical care. On the positive side, some reviewers reported successful therapy and discharge home after rehabilitation, described nurses, aides, and therapists as doing “amazing” work, and said residents received appropriate support. On the negative side, multiple accounts allege severe neglect — including an allegation that nurses refused to initiate CPR while aides performed CPR, a report that a patient was left outside in freezing weather for over an hour and later died at the facility, and accusations of forged signatures and cover-up. Other safety issues include repeated resident falls (with hospital visits, broken ribs, and surgery), staff refusal to assist with toileting, and reports that some staff are abusive or rude. These allegations point to potentially serious systemic problems in emergency response, fall prevention, and supervision for vulnerable residents.
Staffing, training, and behavior: Many reviews single out individual staff members and teams for praise (administration, nursing, aides, housekeeping, PT/OT; one name, Stephanie, is repeatedly commended). Activity staff are often described positively. However, a substantial number of reviews criticize other staff as uncaring, mean, or abusive, and describe behaviors such as nurses using cellphones while on duty. Several reviews explicitly call for improved staff training, particularly in working with residents who have learning disabilities or heightened care needs. The pattern suggests inconsistent staff performance — some employees appear highly dedicated and effective, while others are perceived as neglectful or unprofessional.
Facilities and hygiene: Feedback on the physical environment is mixed. Some reviewers describe the facility as very clean and well maintained, while others report a terrible smell (specifically fecal odor) in rooms and poor basic hygiene practices, including reports that cold water was used for cleanup because hot water was unavailable. Multiple mentions of no hot water in many rooms and unacceptable odors indicate issues in environmental services or maintenance that materially affect resident comfort and dignity.
Dining and daily living amenities: A few positive comments note nutritional meals and helpful support from dining and kitchen staff. At the same time, complaints include the absence of simple amenities like snacks or orange juice at night. These mixed signals indicate that while main meals may be adequate, ancillary services and around‑the‑clock resident comforts may be inconsistent.
Activities and social programming: Activities are a consistent strength in many reviews. Families mention wonderful, faith‑based programming (gospel preaching, singing, and prayer), engaging social activities, and staff in activities who are energetic and kind. Sign-in processes for visitors and nurse-led tours are also mentioned positively, suggesting that certain operational and social aspects are well organized and appreciated by visitors and residents.
Management, transparency, and trust: Several reviews raise concerns about management, honesty, and transparency — citing alleged forged signatures, cover-up efforts, and poor managerial response to incidents. Others commend administration for helpful tours and supportive communication. The presence of both comments suggests variability in leadership responsiveness and a lack of consistent trust among reviewers. A few reviews explicitly state they will avoid the facility and urge others to keep loved ones away, while others would recommend the facility because of specific staff members.
Notable patterns and implications: The dominant theme is inconsistency. Positive outcomes (successful rehab, caring staff, good activities) coexist with severe safety and neglect allegations. The most urgent concerns are the allegations about emergency response, alleged cover-up, falls resulting in serious injury, and hygiene issues; these are issues that would warrant immediate attention and, if accurate, external investigation. For families considering this facility, reviews suggest doing detailed, up‑to‑date checks: ask about staff training and turnover, fall prevention protocols, emergency response procedures, staffing levels during nights and weekends, infection control and housekeeping practices, and speak directly with current families or observe care during multiple visits. When possible, request documentation of incident reporting, corrective actions, and any regulatory investigations or citations.
In summary, CareCore at Lima elicits both strong praise and severe criticism. Many reviewers highlight compassionate, effective staff and successful rehabilitations, along with engaging activities and an organized admissions process. At the same time, several reviewers report alarming negligence, safety incidents, hygiene problems, and management concerns. The reviews indicate a facility with pockets of excellence but also with potentially serious systemic failures; prospective residents and families should investigate thoroughly and consider asking specific, pointed questions about safety, staffing, and incident history before making placement decisions.
