Overall sentiment in the reviews for Amherst Meadows Skilled Nursing and Rehab is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers describe genuinely compassionate, skilled, and attentive staff—especially certain nurses and members of the rehab/physical therapy team—who delivered high-quality rehabilitative care, helped residents regain mobility, and provided individualized, family-friendly communication. Many patients and families praised clean rooms and common areas, frequent activities (bingo, game nights, musical events), on-site personal services (nail/hair), and well-equipped apartments with kitchenettes and walk-in showers. Several reviewers explicitly recommended the facility and reported positive transitions from other, lower-performing nursing homes. There are repeated positive mentions of staff who go above and beyond, daily housekeeping and laundry services (in some cases), and a warm, home-like atmosphere for some residents.
Counterbalancing these positives are numerous and serious concerns that repeatedly appear across reviews. Multiple accounts allege neglectful practices—long waits for toileting and ostomy changes, rough handling, and staff sleeping on duty—which are linked by reviewers to negative health outcomes including dehydration, significant weight loss, infections, and hospital readmissions. There are specific allegations of abuse and at least one report noting that the facility was cited for patient abuse. Understaffing, particularly on weekends or overnight, is a recurrent theme and is often cited as a root cause for delays in care and lack of supervision. Several reviewers noted that patients were left unattended or left in soiled conditions for extended periods. These are not isolated minor complaints but repeated patterns that some reviewers say resulted in formal complaints or investigations.
Safety, privacy, and professional culture concerns emerge strongly in the negative reviews. Some reviewers report toxic workplace culture, staff gossiping about residents, targeting certain residents, and breaches of confidentiality. Agency aides sleeping or doing nothing and nurses sleeping at the station were mentioned explicitly. Management and administrative issues were also recurrent: some reviewers describe unresponsive or hostile management, refusals to replace broken or unsafe equipment (old refrigerators, deadbolts), aggressive billing practices, and charges perceived as excessive or opaque (e.g., quarantine billing). There are reports of maintenance neglect—chipped paint, broken furniture, moldy sidewalks, overflowing dumpsters, and pest problems (mice and bedbugs) that, according to reviewers, extend to laundry and other communal areas. These environmental, maintenance, and administrative lapses significantly undermine trust for a sizable subset of reviewers.
Notably, experiences appear to vary markedly by unit, shift, and staff present. Many of the most positive comments specify rehab units, named nurses, or particular aides and describe excellent, attentive care, prompt response, and strong therapy outcomes. By contrast, many of the most severe complaints appear to originate from long-term nursing areas or during off-hours when staffing is reportedly thinner. This pattern suggests inconsistency in quality—high performance in some teams or shifts, and severe lapses in others. Dining and activities likewise receive mixed reports: several reviewers enjoyed meals and active programming, while others reported substandard breakfasts, insufficient portions, or unappetizing food. Activity levels are praised for higher-functioning residents but described as limited for lower-functioning clients by some reviewers.
Operational problems that affect daily life were frequently raised: lost or mixed clothing, unclear lost-and-found, switched rooms, and disorganized moves; parking shortages and long walks for visitors; small shared rooms in some long-term care areas; and occasional cleanliness or odor issues depending on the reviewer. Multiple families noted positive communication from specific staff and social workers, whereas other families reported unresponsiveness and poor communication regarding diet changes, care plans, or insurance charges. Several reviewers also described incidents that led to hospital readmissions or felt their loved ones were treated as if receiving hospice-level rather than rehabilitative care.
In conclusion, Amherst Meadows presents a polarized reputation. For many residents—particularly those in rehab or who encountered certain nurses and aides—the facility delivers strong therapeutic outcomes, compassionate staff, a clean environment, and meaningful activities. However, there is a substantial and troubling body of reports describing neglect, abuse allegations, unsafe incidents, maintenance and pest problems, management unresponsiveness, and inconsistent staffing that has real consequences for resident safety and dignity. Prospective residents and families should be aware of this variability: consider in-person visits at different times of day (including evenings/weekends), ask about staffing ratios and overnight supervision, meet the rehab and nursing teams who will be caring for the resident, request documentation of any cited complaints or regulatory actions, and clarify billing and maintenance responsiveness. If possible, get specific names of primary nurses/aides and document care interactions—these steps may help replicate the positive experiences many reviewers praise and avoid some of the serious issues others report.
