Overall impression: The reviews for Claremore Skilled Nursing & Therapy are highly mixed and polarized, ranging from deeply positive accounts of compassionate end-of-life care to extremely serious allegations of neglect, medical mismanagement, abuse, and unsanitary conditions. Positive reports consistently emphasize attentive, loving staff, cleanliness, engaging activities, acceptable dining, and good communication from nursing and management. However, the negative reports raise multiple safety concerns — some describing acute medical harms that required hospitalization or ICU care — and point to systemic problems such as understaffing, poor hygiene, and poor accountability.
Care quality and medical issues: Many reviewers report competent, kind clinical care in some cases, but an alarming number describe critical lapses in medical management. Specific allegations include medication-related injuries (ulcers from medications taken on an empty stomach, GI bleeds, blood transfusions), delayed or missing bloodwork and results, ignored orders for blood sugar management, medications given without proper orders, and inappropriate continence care (a diaper-related issue alleged to have led to a permanent catheter). Several reviews describe residents being 'doped up' on pain medicines or having medications administered in ways that family members considered unsafe. Multiple accounts connect these problems to emergency room visits, hospital admissions, ICU transfers, renal failure, and other severe outcomes. These reports suggest both individual errors and potential systemic failures in clinical oversight, medication administration, and monitoring.
Staff behavior, training, and responsiveness: Staff behavior receives starkly divergent ratings. Numerous reviews praise individual caregivers as caring, hardworking, communicative, and family-like, and some families reported that nursing staff kept them well informed. Contrasting that, a significant portion of reviews describe rude, unprofessional, or disrespectful staff and management. Reviewers report long response times (patients hollering for help), aides unavailable during meals, delayed showers, and other lapses tied to understaffing. There are also allegations of fake certifications or otherwise unqualified staff, and reports that some staff attempted to cover up abuse or mishandling of residents. These contrasting perspectives suggest variability in staff performance and possible staffing or training inconsistencies across shifts or units.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: The facility’s physical condition is described both positively and negatively. Positive comments note clean facilities and groomed residents; negative comments raise multiple sanitation and maintenance concerns: mold in a water cup, leaking ceilings, urine odor and concentrated old-urine smell in common areas, dirty carpets, cloth seating in dining rooms, and even trashcans with feces. Some reviewers called the facility outdated and noted small rooms with roommates, while others described private rooms and a lack of bad odors. These conflicting reports indicate that standards of cleanliness may fluctuate and that some areas or shifts may not be maintaining consistent environmental hygiene.
Dining, activities, and social engagement: Several reviewers praised the dining program, mentioning daily specials, menu options, and special events. Positive feedback highlights activities such as bingo, movies, arts and crafts, sing-alongs, field trips, live music, and a decorated dining room for holidays. Conversely, complaints include trays being left in rooms, poor or delayed dining service, dirty dining seating, and aides not being available to assist during meals. Overall, activities appear to be a genuine strength when implemented, but inconsistent staffing and dining service lapses reduce reliability for some residents.
Management, accountability, and family interactions: Reports about management are mixed. Some families praised capable management, good communication, and compassionate handling during a resident’s final days. Other reviews describe serious problems with accountability: administrators allegedly threw people out, restricted visitation, issued false protective orders, failed to return personal belongings, and were accused of elder abandonment or failing to pay discharge bills. There are calls from reviewers for investigations and potential legal action. This inconsistency around administration and family relations points to a need for clearer policies, stronger oversight, and better communication protocols with families.
Patterns and severity: A notable pattern in the negative reviews is the clustering of serious medical and safety incidents (medication harm, missed orders, delayed labs, ER transfers) together with reports of poor hygiene and understaffing. Those combined issues raise patient-safety concerns that go beyond mere dissatisfaction. At the same time, positive reports emphasize humane care, clean conditions, and meaningful programming for some residents, indicating that high-quality care is possible within the facility but may not be consistent across all residents, shifts, or units.
Conclusions and considerations: The overall sentiment is mixed to negative with several recurring and serious themes: inconsistent care quality, potential medical mismanagement, staffing shortages, hygiene problems, and administrative/accountability failures. Families considering this facility should weigh both the positive testimonies of compassionate staff and good activities against the number and severity of safety-related complaints. If engaging with this facility, potential residents and families should ask targeted questions about clinical oversight, staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, infection-control practices, complaint resolution processes, and policies for handling lab work and emergency situations. They should also request current inspection records, staffing rosters by shift, and references from recent families. Given the severity of some allegations (hospitalizations, renal failure, GI bleeding, abuse), these reviews suggest that closer oversight and follow-up are warranted by families and, if confirmed, by appropriate regulatory authorities.
