The set of reviews for Buckeye Forest at Rosemount Pavilion is highly polarized, with a substantial number of glowing reports praising individual staff members, therapy outcomes, and the warm atmosphere, and an equally concerning set of serious allegations about clinical errors, neglect, communication failures, and possible misconduct. Many reviewers express deep appreciation for specific caregivers and managers who provided compassionate, individualized support; others recount events they describe as neglectful or unsafe, some rising to the level of alleged criminal violations. Taken together, the reviews reflect a facility that produces excellent experiences for some residents while posing significant risk factors for others.
Positive themes are consistent and specific. Numerous reviews highlight compassionate, dedicated staff and strong teamwork among nursing, therapy, and ancillary teams. Several reviewers name specific employees (Ashley Oesch, Tim, Stephanie, Chris) as having gone above and beyond, and multiple posts describe smooth transitions into the facility, effective problem resolution by leadership, and therapy-driven functional improvements. Many family members and residents describe the atmosphere as warm, respectful, and family-like; a subset reports the environment is clean and safe and that kitchen and dining staff contribute positively to residents’ quality of life. Rehabilitation and skilled therapy services are repeatedly praised, and some reviewers explicitly call the facility the best option in the area.
Conversely, the concerning themes are frequent and serious. Multiple reviews allege medication failures — missed medications, improper dosing, and overmedication/sedation — and claim a lack of appropriate physician consultation. Several accounts describe failures to provide required assistance to disabled residents (not bathing for weeks, lack of mobility aids, failure to follow doctor orders) leading to bed sores, deterioration, and in some reports, death. There are also allegations of falsified therapy or nursing records, delayed or refused hospital transport, and restricted access to mail or phone communication. These issues point to potential systemic problems with clinical oversight, documentation integrity, and residents’ rights.
Communication and responsiveness emerge as mixed but critical issues. Some reviewers praise staff for keeping families updated and answering questions promptly. In contrast, many others report extremely slow phone responses, unanswered calls from doctors on call, delayed call-light responses, long waits for assistance, and poor coordination of appointments. These inconsistent accounts suggest variability by shift, unit, or individual staff member rather than uniform performance. Several reviews also cite insufficient staffing, staff distraction (phones), and aides engaging in problematic behavior (smoking overnight), which would exacerbate delayed responses and safety risks.
Financial and ethical concerns are prominent in a subset of reviews. Allegations include withholding back pay, residents living with minimal personal resources, perceived theft of residents’ belongings, and improper handling of mail. These raise potential legal and regulatory red flags distinct from clinical care quality and suggest families should verify financial practices, property handling policies, and complaint records. The presence of both very positive and very negative accounts implies inconsistent enforcement of policy and variable oversight.
Facility-level impressions (environment, safety, operations) are similarly mixed. Some reviewers report a clean, safe environment and praise kitchen staff and therapy departments. Others note strong odors, safety hazards (residents left in wheelchairs, fall risk), and overall substandard care leading to recommendations to avoid the facility. The disparity in reports indicates that experience may heavily depend on specific units, shifts, or team compositions.
Overall, the reviews point to two dominant patterns: (1) a core of committed, skilled employees who deliver excellent, compassionate care and produce positive outcomes for many residents; and (2) recurring, serious allegations of clinical neglect, medication errors, poor communication, documentation issues, and potential financial or legal misconduct. For families considering this facility, these mixed reviews suggest the need for careful, targeted due diligence: review state inspection and complaint histories, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, request specifics on medication administration and error reporting processes, check policies for mail and personal property, verify visitation and physician communication protocols, and speak directly with current families and/or the local long-term care ombudsman. If you already have a loved one at the facility and observe issues raised in the negative reviews, document incidents promptly, escalate to administration and the corporate compliance line, and contact the state survey agency and ombudsman for investigation support.
