Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly mixed, with a large number of caregivers, therapists, and activities staff receiving high praise alongside numerous, at-times severe, allegations of neglect, poor management, and infrastructure problems. Many families and residents report very positive experiences: compassionate nursing and STNA care, skilled and effective therapy leading to meaningful rehabilitation, nourishing meals presented attractively, and an active activities calendar that creates a warm, family-like environment. Several reviewers explicitly credit the facility with returning loved ones to home and independent activity, and they single out admissions staff, certain administrators, and named individuals (for example Tina and Megan in some reviews) for helpful, attentive support. These positive reports emphasize emotional support, individualized attention, 24-hour visitation accommodations, and on-site clinical capabilities such as IVs, x-rays, and monthly bloodwork that support resident care.
However, the positive narrative is juxtaposed against multiple reports of serious clinical and operational failures. Numerous reviewers describe delayed nurse responses, missed medication or treatment events, and basic care lapses such as failure to bathe, change, or turn residents on schedule. Some accounts describe alarming clinical crises: very low oxygen saturations, tracheostomy care concerns, development of bedsores in a short time, dehydration, and situations requiring ambulance transfer. These incidents suggest inconsistent nursing surveillance and escalation procedures for acute problems. Several reviews allege misreporting or falsifying of vitals and charting, which raises significant concerns about documentation reliability and patient safety.
Staffing, management, and communication are recurring themes in the negative reviews. Many reviewers report understaffing and overworked personnel, which families link to poor care and slow responses. There are repeated complaints about management and administration: while some reviews praise long-tenured or hands-on administrators and helpful admissions staff, others describe administrators as disrespectful, using demeaning language toward staff, or failing to address systemic problems. Communication gaps are noted both between doctors and nursing staff — with reports that clinical orders take time to reach bedside caregivers — and between facility staff and families, including unreturned messages and unmet promises for supplies such as wheelchairs or shower chairs.
The dining experience receives mixed but specific feedback. Numerous reviews praise the dining room atmosphere, attractive table settings, balanced meals with fruits, vegetables, protein, fiber-rich dishes, and generous portions. The dietary director is positively mentioned for attentiveness. Conversely, other reviewers describe the food as bland or cold, and some raise food-safety concerns such as lack of hair nets or gloves in the kitchen. These contrasting views indicate that dining quality may vary by shift, meal, or kitchen practices over time.
Facility condition and housekeeping also show a split pattern. Several reviewers say the building is clean, smells-free, and well maintained with prompt laundry service. Others describe aging infrastructure — leaking ceilings, broken toilets, outdated laundry machines, unpleasant odors, and slow maintenance — that undermine comfort and safety. Problems such as unlabeled clothing, missing personal items, slow laundry turnaround, and instances of rooms being left in an unhygienic state (wet with urine, no sheets) are serious concerns affecting resident dignity and hygiene.
Activities and community life are frequently lauded. Music concerts, holiday parties, bingo, auctions, and a resident council contribute to high morale for many residents. Multiple reviews highlight the activities department as enriching and inclusive, contributing to a home-like, engaged environment. This is a clear strength for residents seeking social engagement and quality-of-life programming.
A notable pattern is the variability of experiences between reviewers. Many cite exemplary, compassionate staff and a sense of safety and rehabilitation success, while others report neglect, unsafe clinical events, and management failures. This variability suggests inconsistent care processes, potential staffing fluctuations, and uneven leadership accountability. Some named staff are singled out positively (and rarely negatively), indicating that individual caregivers can significantly influence family perceptions and outcomes.
In conclusion, New Lebanon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center appears to offer strong rehabilitation services, a caring core of nursing and therapy staff, and an active, resident-centered activities program that many families value. At the same time, the facility faces serious, recurring criticisms related to staffing levels, management communication, hygiene and maintenance, and alarming isolated incidents of clinical neglect. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the documented strengths and the reported risks: ask about current staffing ratios, incident reporting and remediation processes, leadership tenure, oversight of clinical documentation, infection control and food-safety practices, and recent facility maintenance work. Visiting the facility, requesting recent inspection records, speaking with current families, and confirming the names of core clinical and administrative staff can help clarify whether the aspects that matter most to an individual resident are consistently met.
