Overall impression: Reviews of Majestic Care of Cedar Village are sharply polarized. A substantial number of families and residents describe a warm, community-oriented campus with compassionate staff, strong rehabilitation services, attractive grounds, and active programming. Conversely, a sizable set of reviews detail serious operational, safety, and care-quality problems including understaffing, medication mistakes, poor dining, maintenance failures, and allegations of negligence that in some extreme cases involved pressure sores, infections, falls, and even deaths. The most consistent pattern is variability: many people report excellent experiences while many others report deeply concerning incidents. This variability suggests differences by unit, shift, leadership period, or individual staff members rather than a uniformly positive or negative picture.
Care quality and staff: Nursing and caregiving receive mixed to conflicting assessments. Numerous reviews praise aides, therapists, and nurses as kind, patient, and attentive and single out specific employees and leaders (for example Amanda, Tonya, Chelsea, Kara, Anna Beniash, Umida, Ed Andrew, Mindy Ellis, and aide LaShonda) for going above and beyond. The rehabilitation/physical therapy department is repeatedly cited as a strength—professional, effective, and well-staffed in many reports. At the same time, there are frequent, serious complaints about understaffing, long wait times for basic needs (bathroom help frequently cited as taking 20–30+ minutes), rude or neglectful nurses, missed doctor appointments, medication errors, and instances of inadequate clinical care. Several reviews allege that staffing shortages and unqualified personnel directly contributed to adverse outcomes (pressure sores, sepsis, unattended patients), which families described as negligent. Night and weekend shifts are singled out repeatedly as times when care declines.
Rehabilitation: The facility’s rehab program is one of the strongest recurrent positives. Many reviewers credit physical therapy staff and leaders (Tonya and others) with excellent outcomes, challenging but enjoyable therapy, and strong coordination of care that made families comfortable leaving loved ones there for recovery. However, some families describe rushed or unsafe therapy experiences that led to falls or re-injury; a minority reported poor supervision during rehab resulting in serious harm. Overall, rehab is generally praised but not uniformly so.
Dining and nutrition: Food service is one of the most common areas of complaint. Many reviews describe poor quality meals—cold trays, fried or low-nutrition offerings, styrofoam service containers, meals running out or differing from posted menus, and limited breakfast choices on delivered trays. A number of reviewers call for dietician involvement and improved menu planning. Contrasting these complaints, other reviewers report nutritious meals, plentiful portions, and even high-quality coffee and baked goods. Like other themes, dining quality appears inconsistent across time and units.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: Multiple reviews convey that the property has attractive grounds, bay windows, patios, a fitness center, pool, and remodeled rooms—features that families appreciated and that contribute to a welcoming campus feel. Several reviewers praised recent renovations, modern private rooms, and well-kept outdoor areas. At the same time, other reviews report serious maintenance and cleanliness shortcomings: mildew smells, bacteria in carpets, pests (spiders/wasps), non-functioning heat on floors, broken transition strips causing falls, parking-lot trash, and inconsistent housekeeping. These contrasting observations again point to uneven standards across the facility or over time.
Activities and community life: A clear strength across many accounts is the robust activities program and sense of community. Concerts, craft fairs, petting zoos, bingo, karaoke, religious services, Russian-club gatherings, and specialized cultural events were repeatedly mentioned as enhancing resident quality of life. Many residents and families praised staff who organize meaningful leisure time, and multiple reviews describe a friendly, engaged resident community where volunteers and family members feel welcome.
Management, operations, and communication: Reviews show wide divergence in views of leadership. Several families applaud new leadership and specific administrative staff for strong onboarding, transparency, and improvements. Conversely, other reviewers describe disorganization, poor communication, slow or dismissive complaint handling, alleged cover-ups (e.g., removal of injury photos), deceptive sales tactics or pressure around financial grants, billing disputes, and slow refund handling requiring legal involvement. These operational concerns—combined with staffing shortages—appear to drive much of the negative sentiment and are central to families’ loss of trust.
Safety and serious incidents: Perhaps the most critical pattern in the negative reviews is the reporting of safety failures. Multiple accounts describe falls (sometimes during therapy), medication mistakes, missed vital care (e.g., unattended soiled patients, trache care not performed), pressure ulcers, infections, and in some cases death attributed in part to inadequate care. There are also reports of doors/gates left open and inadequate heating. These reports are serious and recurring enough in the dataset to represent a major concern for prospective residents and families.
Patterns and recommendations for families: The reviews indicate that outcomes at Cedar Village are highly dependent on timing, unit, and staffing levels. When staffing and leadership are adequate, families report strong rehab results, caring staff, and an engaged community. When short-staffing and operational lapses occur, reviews describe long waits, inconsistent clinical care, and serious safety events. Prospective families should: (1) tour multiple times, including nights/weekends if possible, (2) ask specific questions about staffing ratios per unit and shift, (3) inquire about recent leadership changes and complaint resolution procedures, (4) ask to meet rehab leadership and view therapy schedules, (5) review incident reports and infection/inspection records where available, and (6) confirm meal service practices and laundry procedures in writing.
Conclusion: Majestic Care of Cedar Village receives both high praise for its rehab, activities, and many compassionate staff members and serious criticism for operational, safety, and quality-of-care problems. The facility has clear strengths that make it a good fit for some residents—particularly those primarily seeking rehabilitation, active programming, and an engaged community—but the recurrent reports of understaffing, inconsistent nursing care, dining problems, maintenance lapses, and severe safety incidents mean families should perform careful, targeted due diligence before committing. The mixed reviews point to an institution that can deliver excellent care under the right conditions but has systemic vulnerabilities that require active management and oversight to ensure consistent, safe service.
