Overall impression: Reviews for Ohio Valley Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center are sharply divided, producing a polarized picture. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility's appearance, social programming, food, and certain staff members—particularly some nurses and therapy personnel—who are described as compassionate, professional, and attentive. At the same time, many other reviewers report serious clinical lapses, safety issues, and management problems that have led to harms such as untreated medical conditions, pressure ulcers, repeated falls, and even deaths. The most important theme is inconsistency: the facility can provide very good social and rehabilitative experiences for some residents, while others report neglect or dangerous care failures.
Care quality and clinical safety: A recurring negative theme centers on clinical care and safety. Multiple reviews allege medication errors and unsafe prescribing (including medications reportedly not appropriate for dementia), episodes of untreated low blood sugar, persistent coughing left ignored, and failures to adhere to weight-bearing or post-op restrictions. There are multiple reports of falls—sometimes repeated—often tied to missing call buzzers, slow response times, or staff walking away while a resident was falling. Serious wound care concerns appear in the reviews (large bedsores with infection), alongside descriptions of inadequate bathing, oral care neglect, catheter incidents, and resulting weight loss. Several reviewers explicitly linked these clinical failures to severe prognoses or death.
Staffing, morale, and behavior: Staffing and staff behavior are major drivers of the mixed reviews. Positive reviews highlight compassionate, informed, and attentive caregivers who communicate with families. Negative reviews describe understaffing, staff burnout, bickering, wage cuts or alleged wage theft, and disrespect toward employees—all of which reviewers say contribute to laziness, neglect, and unsafe care. Specific allegations include aides walking away during emergencies, long delays for assistance, and denial of care tied to billing or debt issues. These personnel and morale problems are cited as root causes for many of the clinical lapses and inconsistent experiences.
Therapy, rehabilitation, and resident experience: Many reviewers praised therapy staff and short-term rehab outcomes, noting personalized physical therapy and patient-focused care that led to improvement. However, other reviewers complained that therapy was not communicated, not provided as promised, or rendered ineffective because of lockdowns or restricted access. Social programming and community involvement receive consistent praise: the facility is described as upbeat and family-friendly, with outings, holiday parties, Santa visits, and involvement with funds like ACORN. These positives suggest a strong social and activity program that benefits many residents.
Facilities, dining, and environment: The physical facility is frequently described as attractive, clean, and well-maintained. Several reviewers note apartment-style rooms that can be decorated, reliable housekeeping, and a pleasant atmosphere for visitors. Dining receives mixed-to-positive remarks—some residents love the food—yet isolated incidents (e.g., serving a soda for breakfast) were cited negatively. Equipment reliability is a problem in some accounts (for example, an air bed not functioning), which can directly affect resident safety and comfort.
Administrative and policy concerns: Reviewers raise serious administrative and policy issues. Multiple accounts claim denial or restriction of care based on unpaid bills or debt, which is a significant concern for families. There are also allegations of internal financial or labor-management problems (wage cuts, wage theft claims) and at least one mention of state intervention being requested. Communication quality is inconsistent: some families report transparent, helpful communication during move-in and throughout care, while others report poor communication around therapy, clinical changes, or safety incidents.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is variability. For families seeking a facility with strong social programs, appealing environment, and potentially high-quality therapy and some very caring staff, Ohio Valley Manor may deliver a positive experience. However, the frequency and seriousness of safety and clinical-care complaints—medication issues, untreated medical problems, falls, pressure ulcers, denial of care tied to billing, and alleged staff neglect—are major red flags. These problems are often associated in reviewers' narratives with understaffing, low morale, and administrative shortcomings.
Recommendations based on reviews: Families and referral sources should treat these reviews as indicating mixed outcomes and should verify current conditions before placement. Important verification steps (informed by the reviews) include asking about staffing levels and turnover, wound-care and pressure-ulcer prevention protocols, medication management and pharmacy oversight, fall-prevention systems (call buzzers, staffing response times), policies on care during billing disputes, and recent state inspection or deficiency reports. When possible, visit during different shifts, speak directly with nurses or therapy staff who would provide care, and request written care plans and documentation of recent incidents or corrective actions.
Conclusion: The reviews present a facility with strong positives—clean, attractive spaces, active programming, and many genuinely caring staff members—but also with systemic, recurring negatives that have produced harm for some residents. The decision to use this facility should weigh the possibility of excellent social and rehabilitative experiences against documented risks in clinical care and safety. Prospective residents and families should perform focused due diligence on clinical safeguards, staffing, and administrative practices before committing, and monitor care closely if moving forward.
