The reviews for Arbors at Marietta present a deeply mixed and polarized picture, with a large cluster of strongly positive experiences concentrated around therapy/rehab, respiratory care, and individual staff members, and an equally alarming set of negative accounts that allege neglect, safety lapses, and poor management practices. Many reviewers praise the therapy department, noting exceptional one-on-one and group therapy, effective rehab outcomes that enabled residents to return home, and a rehabilitation floor atmosphere described as lively and healing. The on-site respiratory therapy and ventilator care team receive repeated positive mention, and several families and residents report kind, professional, and compassionate nurses and nursing assistants who made stays comfortable. Long-tenured staff, home-like atmosphere, engaging activities and social events, and moments of above-and-beyond service are recurring positive themes.
However, there are persistent and serious negative themes that cannot be ignored. Multiple reviews allege neglect leading to bedsores, delayed repositioning, missed skin checks, and wound infections requiring significant interventions such as debridement. There are allegations that medication administration failures occurred — including at least one review linking missed medication to a resident death — and reports of delayed physician involvement and inconsistent nursing oversight. Understaffing and slow or inconsistent responses to call lights are common complaints, as are rude or uncaring aide behavior. Several reviewers report unclean conditions, odors of urine, and concerns about laundering (same sheets) or general sanitation.
Safety and personal property concerns are prominent in the negative reviews. Reports include missing glasses, theft of belongings, physical injuries (including a black eye), and outright allegations of assault by staff or others. There are also claims that family members were not properly informed of serious events or deaths — including one alarming report of cremation prior to family notification — which speaks to severe breakdowns in communication and policy adherence. Infection control and PPE use are reported inconsistently: some reviewers noted proper COVID precautions and PPE, while others describe improper PPE during dressing changes and poor adherence to precautions. Dietary mismanagement (renal diets not followed) and problems with environmental safety (recessed doors, crowded shared rooms with 3–4 residents) were also reported.
Facility condition and management feedback is mixed. Several reviewers describe the building as dark, depressing, outdated, or needing upgrades, while others describe clean, up-to-date, and comfortable areas. Management receives praise in some accounts for being supportive and responsive, but there are also allegations of mismanagement, untrustworthy financial staff, scam accusations associated with an individual (Brandee Waugh mentioned), and abuse citations that contribute to a concerning internet reputation for some reviewers. Communication failures are frequently cited — unhelpful staff, lied-about nurse presence, phones not answered — although other reviews highlight clear directions, prompt front-desk assistance, and helpful admission experiences.
In summary, Arbors at Marietta appears to deliver excellent specialized services (notably therapy/rehab and respiratory care) and has many staff members who are compassionate, experienced, and effective. At the same time, there are multiple, serious allegations of neglect, inconsistent nursing and aide performance, safety and property issues, and lapses in communication and policy that have led to harm in at least some cases according to reviewers. The result is a highly variable resident experience that seems to depend heavily on unit, shift, and individual caregivers. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong rehabilitative and respiratory services and the many testimonials of great staff against the recurring reports of understaffing, neglect, and safety/communication failures. If considering admission, families should ask direct, documented questions about staffing ratios, wound care protocols, medication administration checks, infection control procedures, incident reporting and family notification policies, property/security procedures, and recent corrective actions for any cited deficiencies. Regular family engagement, frequent inspections of the resident, and clear written care plans may help mitigate risk given the variability reflected in these reviews.
