Overall sentiment across the reviews for Continuing Healthcare at the Ridge is highly polarized. A significant portion of reviewers praise the front-line caregiving staff, the activities program, and certain aspects of the physical environment, while a roughly equal or larger portion report serious clinical failures, management problems, and operational deficiencies. The reviews contain both strong positive endorsements — "excellent care," "wonderful staff," "phenomenal activities" — and severe negative allegations including missed stroke recognition, delayed emergency response, and claims that owners are primarily motivated by money.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most consequential themes. Multiple reviewers describe unacceptable clinical lapses: nurses failing to recognize stroke symptoms, delayed ambulance transfers, and, in one report, multiple strokes followed by the patient's death. There are also reports of delayed mobilization after surgery due to lack of physician orders, disagreement or poor coordination with physical therapists (including arguments over walker use), and claims that required therapies were not delivered. Several reviewers describe inadequate clinical knowledge among staff about specialized care (feeding tubes) and even medication changes without family consent. These issues suggest inconsistent clinical competency and coordination of care and, in at least some cases, potentially dangerous delays in emergency response.
Staffing, staff behavior, and communication are recurrent and conflicting themes. Many reviews explicitly praise front-line staff as friendly, helpful, courteous, and attentive, and multiple families reported positive, even affectionate, relationships with aides and nurses. The activities staff receives particular praise for providing engaging, morale-boosting programs. However, a large number of reviews report understaffing and overwhelmed employees, leading to long call-light response times (reports up to an hour), residents not being bathed for prolonged periods, and hurried or poor-quality care. Complaints also frequently cite rude or disrespectful attitudes from certain nurses or nurse aides, a dismissive director of nursing or administration, and conflicting instructions from different staff members. Several reviewers reported no response from leadership (including the DON) when they raised concerns.
Facility condition and operations are reported inconsistently. Some reviewers describe the building as bright, exceptionally clean, well-organized, with spacious rooms, large windows, and a pleasant courtyard. Other reviews describe a filthy facility with old and dirty floor finish, stained ceiling tiles indicating leaks, lingering cleanliness problems, and operational lapses such as room moves where belongings were not transferred. Dining is mainly described as satisfactory with in-room dining available, although at least one reviewer claimed being lied to about meal provision. These mixed reports point to variability in housekeeping and maintenance standards over time or across units.
Management, ownership, and trust issues appear as a central negative motif. Several reviewers accuse owners or management of being primarily focused on money, with language such as "money-grabbing owner" or reporting unfulfilled refund promises. Some reviews escalate these allegations to claims of embezzlement or a Ponzi-scheme, and calls for investigations or closure appear. Whether these serious financial allegations have merit is beyond what the reviews alone can prove, but they do indicate deep distrust among multiple families. That distrust is reinforced by reports of dismissive administrators, poor follow-through on family concerns, and lack of transparent communication.
Rehabilitation and therapy services receive mixed reactions. Some families praised the facility as a good setting for short-term therapy and rehabilitation, noting positive therapy outcomes. Conversely, other families said promised PT was not delivered or encountered disputes with therapists, and one account described delayed mobilization after surgery because of a lack of physician orders. This inconsistency suggests therapy availability and quality may depend on timing, staffing levels, individual therapists, or coordination with physicians.
Activities and resident engagement are consistently positive relative to other categories: multiple reviewers specifically call out a strong activities department, enthusiastic participation by staff (including dancing RNs), and enjoyable events that improve resident morale. For families seeking engaging social programming, this is a clear strength.
Patterns and recommendations for families evaluating this facility: the reviews point to a highly variable experience — some residents and families report excellent care and pleasant surroundings, while others report severe clinical and operational failures. Recurring red flags to probe further in person are: emergency response protocols and recent incident history (including how suspected strokes and acute changes are handled), staffing levels and turnover (particularly at night and on weekends), specific care competencies needed for your loved one (e.g., feeding tube management, medication administration policies and consent processes), call-light response times, and management responsiveness (ask for examples of how family concerns are escalated and resolved). When touring, request to meet the Director of Nursing, ask for recent state inspection reports and staffing ratios, review therapy plans and schedules, and observe cleanliness and staff-resident interactions in multiple units and at different times of day.
In summary, Continuing Healthcare at the Ridge elicits strongly mixed reviews: it can provide warm, engaging, and in some cases excellent care, especially in activities and among certain front-line staff, but there are repeated and serious complaints about clinical oversight, emergency responsiveness, management practices, cleanliness in some areas, and inconsistent delivery of promised therapies. The pattern suggests that experiences vary widely by unit, shift, and individual staff, and families should conduct a thorough, targeted evaluation and obtain clear, documented answers to safety- and communication-related questions before making decisions.
