The reviews for Mid-Del Skilled Nursing & Therapy present a highly mixed picture with strong praise in some areas and serious concerns in others. On the positive side, many reviewers highlight the quality of direct care: friendly, relationship-based staff, caring CNAs and LPNs, and named individuals who made a meaningful difference (Nurse Eddy, Krissy, Charlotte). Therapy and rehabilitation services are frequently singled out as excellent — multiple reviewers described therapy teams as “awesome” and credited the facility for good rehab outcomes. Several accounts describe professional administration, staff outreach to families, and meals that looked and tasted good. For families who had positive experiences, the facility provided trustworthy long-term care, comfort, and gratitude for the staff’s attentiveness.
However, the positive impressions are countered by repeated and significant negative reports. Cleanliness and hygiene emerge as a major concern: some reviewers noted rooms were clean with a pleasant smell, but multiple others described urine odor, unsanitary rugs, filthy conditions, and a generally old, poorly maintained facility. These accounts are not isolated and suggest inconsistency in housekeeping standards. A related and serious theme is inconsistent staff quality across shifts — many reviewers praised day and certain evening teams (for example, the 3–11 shift) while reporting that night and weekend care was “horrible,” with unhelpful or absent staff, long waits for showers, and a lack of respect for residents.
Medical oversight and communication are also divided but critical themes. Several reviewers praised nurses and aides who were attentive and even stayed late to provide care; others allege missed health checks, lack of nurse/doctor involvement, failure to notify families about important events, and in the most extreme reports, life-threatening outcomes (sepsis, very low blood pressure, CCU hospitalization, and death risk). These allegations point to potential lapses in monitoring and escalation of clinical issues. One staff member (Valesa Jackson) is mentioned both positively (going above and beyond) and negatively (unhelpful), illustrating the uneven experience families can have depending on which staff are on duty.
Facility layout, capacity, and accessibility are additional recurring problems. Multiple reviews state bathrooms are too small for walkers or wheelchairs and there is not much space for activities, suggesting the building may not meet the needs of more mobility-impaired residents. Overcrowding and the location of the dining area — with noted sanitary concerns — were flagged. Several reviewers commented that the facility appears old and needs upgrades; some felt the website photos were misleading compared with on-site conditions. Finally, there are complaints about pricing being high relative to perceived value.
In summary, the overall sentiment is mixed and highly dependent on specific shifts, staff members, and individual experiences. Strengths lie in therapy/rehab quality, several compassionate and professional caregivers, and satisfactory dining for many residents. The most significant risks highlighted by reviewers are inconsistent staffing (especially nights/weekends), poor and variable cleanliness, communication failures with families, accessibility limitations, and alarming reports of clinical oversight failures. These patterns suggest that prospective residents and families should verify current staffing patterns, cleanliness standards, and clinical protocols — particularly for night and weekend coverage — and, if possible, speak directly with recent families about consistency of care before making placement decisions.
