Overall impression and sentiment: The reviews for Franciscan Care Center are highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise specific staff members, therapy services, cleanliness, and successful short-term rehab outcomes, while an equally large and vocal set of reviewers report serious and systemic failures in basic nursing care, communication, safety, and management. The dominant underlying theme tying many negative reports together is chronic understaffing and high turnover, which reviewers link to long call-light response times, missed personal care, and inconsistent delivery of care. Several reviews describe positive, even exceptional, experiences concentrated around therapy (PT/OT), compassionate individual nurses or aides, and an overall welcoming environment; however, these positive accounts coexist with reports of neglect severe enough to require hospitalization in some cases.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Many reviews highlight core clinical quality problems: medications not given or diverted, missed wound care and wound vac delays, failure to follow care plans, and missed assessments of changes in condition. Specific severe outcomes cited include development of gangrene and loss of part of a foot after allegedly inappropriate medication management and communication failures, reports of bedsore formation and skin tears, and at least one reported resident death where families felt care was inadequate. Personal hygiene lapses are frequently mentioned — residents reportedly went days or even over a week without showers, were left in soiled diapers for extended periods, or were left in bed without repositioning. Several reviewers alleged falsified records or documentation that did not reflect the reality of care provided. These clinical lapses are often attributed by reviewers to understaffing and poor supervision.
Staffing, workforce behavior, and variability in staff performance: A recurring pattern is that some nursing staff, therapists, and housekeepers are praised as exceptional, while other shifts or staff members are described as uncaring or negligent. Reviewers repeatedly note that nurses and therapy staff can be excellent — particularly therapy teams and certain named nurses — but that aides/STNAs are often overworked, inattentive, or absent. Reports of staff texting instead of answering call lights, leaving residents unattended, exhibiting a pay-check mentality, or engaging in inappropriate conversations while working suggest morale and supervision problems. High staff turnover and management instability are cited as contributors to inconsistent care. Several reviews explicitly name an ineffective Director of Nursing and criticize management for ignoring complaints.
Facility, sanitation, and environment: Descriptions of the physical environment are mixed. Numerous reviewers praise the facility’s cleanliness, absence of odors, professional housekeeping, and pleasant common areas including a chapel. Conversely, other reviews allege serious sanitation lapses: persistent urine odors, dirty clothing returned from laundry, pests or fly larvae found on residents, and residents kept in unsanitary conditions. These conflicting reports indicate variability over time or between units/shifts, raising concerns about the facility’s consistency in infection control and daily cleaning procedures.
Rehabilitation, therapy, and medical resources: Physical and occupational therapy programs are one of the most consistently praised aspects. Many families credit the therapy staff with strong outcomes, rapid recovery, and excellent programming that helped residents return home. A subset of reviewers also values on-site physicians and wound specialists — when available and engaged, these services reduced the need for external doctor visits and supported better clinical care. However, other reviewers reported delayed wound vac supplies, incorrect wound vac application, and late wound dressing changes, underscoring inconsistent delivery of specialized care.
Dining and activities: Dining experiences are also mixed. Some reviewers appreciated the food, family dining opportunities, and the ability to accommodate dietary restrictions (e.g., pork-free requests). Others reported very poor meals, breakfast mishaps, trays without water, and neglect in the dining room (lights off, residents unattended). Activities and spiritual programming (chapel) are positively mentioned in several reviews, but some families complained that residents were not taken to chapel or outside and experienced social isolation.
Communication, administration, and billing: Communication problems are a frequent grievance: families report difficulty contacting staff, phones that ring with no voicemail, scripted or defensive responses from staff, and complaints being ignored. Several reviews allege billing irregularities or attempted financial improprieties. Reports of lost belongings and inadequate laundry tracking point to operational weaknesses. There are also allegations of falsified records and inadequate discharge planning (e.g., residents discharged without a home inspection or proper follow-up), which compound family distrust.
Safety, security, and allegations of abuse: Multiple reviews raise safety concerns: falls without appropriate alarm or assistance, residents left isolated without a functioning call light, theft of clothing or personal items, and allegations of staff substance use or drinking while on furloughs. A small number of reviews assert conditions that could warrant investigation by health inspectors, including severe neglect (flies/larvae, residents left in filth) and possible abuse. These accounts, if accurate, represent critical patient-safety and regulatory issues.
Patterns, caveats, and recommendations for families considering the facility: The most consistent pattern across reviews is variability: many caring and skilled employees are named and praised, particularly in therapy and nursing, yet systemic problems — chiefly understaffing, inconsistent supervision, and management shortcomings — repeatedly produce lapses in basic care for other residents. Positive reviews often reflect stays for short-term rehab with active therapy teams and engaged nurses, while the most serious negative reports relate to longer stays or custodial care where staff shortages and continuity breakdowns appear more pronounced. Because of this divergence, prospective residents and families should evaluate the facility with targeted questions: current staffing levels and ratios, turnover and leadership stability (Director of Nursing), wound-care protocols and record transparency, call-light response times, laundry safeguards, incident reporting procedures, and recent state inspection and complaint records. During visits, observe multiple shifts, check the dining room and patient rooms for cleanliness and odors, and ask to speak with therapy staff, nursing leadership, and families of current patients to get a fuller sense of consistency.
Bottom line: Franciscan Care Center elicits strongly mixed responses. It can provide excellent rehabilitation, compassionate individual caregivers, and a clean, faith-centered environment for some residents. At the same time, there are numerous and serious reports of neglect, clinical errors, poor communication, and safety issues—many reviewers tie these problems to chronic understaffing and management failures. Families should weigh both the documented strengths (notably therapy and some nursing staff) and the recurring systemic concerns, perform careful due diligence, and seek concrete assurances about staffing, clinical oversight, and accountability before choosing this facility for long-term or high-dependency care.
