Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed and highly polarized: many reviewers praise frontline caregivers, therapy teams, social services and certain aspects of clinical care, while others report serious operational, safety, cleanliness and management failures. The strongest and most consistent positive theme is the quality of many nurses, aides and therapy staff — reviewers repeatedly call out compassionate, respectful, well‑trained caregivers who communicate effectively with families, respond quickly to needs, and provide excellent skilled rehabilitation and hospice care. Several reviews specifically highlight a strong Social Service Director, an effective admissions coordinator, plentiful activities and outings, and pandemic protections that reportedly kept residents largely free of COVID‑19 illness. Some reviewers note a welcoming, home‑like atmosphere and long‑tenured staff who keep things running smoothly on many units.
However, the positive impressions are frequently offset by recurring and serious negatives. A dominant negative theme is chronic understaffing — especially on weekends and mid‑shifts — with concrete examples such as one nurse responsible for approximately 30 patients and only one or two aides covering 16 patients. This staffing shortage is tied to reports of overworked, unhappy staff, frequent agency replacements, mid‑shift quitting, and gaps in coverage. Reviewers attribute many of the most serious care lapses to these staffing problems: ignored call lights, refusal or denial of prescribed pain medications, unattended residents found alone for extended periods, and failures to call physicians or emergency services in critical situations.
Closely related are multiple allegations of neglect and safety incidents. Several reviewers describe falls that were not prevented or properly addressed, one leading to a broken hip and death, as well as cases of bedsores, urinary tract infections, and other avoidable medical complications. Some reviews recount deeply disturbing episodes — staff arguing with patients, a nurse walking away saying "I've had it," and a patient left unattended until hospitalization. These reports describe unacceptable lapses in basic nursing care and oversight and are serious red flags for prospective residents and families.
Cleanliness and environment show a clear split across reviews. While some reviewers describe the facility as clean, welcoming and well cared for, another substantial set of reports focuses on a "disgustingly dirty" memory care wing with deplorable floors and bathrooms. Housekeeping is described as limited or infrequent in multiple accounts; some minor repairs (tile, toilet) are mentioned but do not appear to address broader sanitation concerns. Several reviewers characterize parts of the facility as outdated or "prison‑like," and a number describe amenities as minimal or non‑existent relative to the cost.
Management and corporate responsiveness are also recurring concerns. Multiple reviewers call out a weak administrator and an unresponsive corporate office, with complaints that leadership is focused on financial issues rather than resident care. There are mentions of state health department citations, which corroborate regulatory concerns for some aspects of the facility’s operation. These governance issues are often tied to the perceptions of chronic understaffing and inconsistent quality control.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Some residents and families praise excellent food, flexible meal options, many daily activities, and a robust events calendar. Others report inedible food, minimal staff effort, and a lack of meaningful amenities. Similarly, experiences with memory care are contradictory: a number of reviewers report very good dementia care and attentive staff who keep residents active and social, while others describe the memory care unit as dirty, unsafe, and restrictive.
Patterns that emerge from these reviews include strong variability by unit, shift, and individual staff members. Positive experiences often link to specific teams or leaders (e.g., a praised unit director, Lacey, the Social Service Director, or particular nurses and STNAs), whereas negative experiences often coincide with understaffed weekends, agency staff, or particular problematic shifts. The facility appears to perform well in structured clinical programs such as short‑term rehab and hospice, and there are credible reports of excellent therapy outcomes and rapid, compassionate end‑of‑life care.
Bottom line: Altercare Newark North shows significant strengths in frontline caregiving, therapy services and family communication, and some families report excellent outcomes and a welcoming environment. At the same time, there are repeated, serious concerns about staffing levels, cleanliness (especially in memory care), safety/neglect incidents, and management responsiveness. These issues have led to regulatory citations and, in some cases, transfers to hospitals or other facilities. Prospective residents and families should weigh the quality of specific units and shifts, ask for recent staffing ratios and state inspection reports, tour the memory care unit in person, and seek references about recent management changes before making placement decisions.
