Overall sentiment in these review summaries is strongly negative, with multiple reviewers reporting serious care, safety, and facility maintenance concerns. The most frequent and severe themes relate to medical neglect and safety: reviewers allege nurses refused or delayed medical attention, residents were often sick (including pneumonia), and at least one incident involved a nurse placing a resident on the ground. Several reviews report no incident documentation and failure to notify family or the POA, which compounds concerns about transparency and resident protection.
Facility condition and maintenance are major recurring problems. Reviewers report water leaks under hall flooring and into individual rooms for extended periods, no hot water for weeks, ripped up floors left unrepaired, and mold in walls and floors. Repairs are described as done incorrectly or not completed. These environmental issues are associated with ongoing health concerns among residents and contribute to an unclean appearance that some families say prompted them to limit visits.
Cleanliness and infection control issues appear inconsistent. A few comments describe parts of the facility as clean and praise the kitchen, but others describe urine along bedside walls, general cleanliness concerns, and illegal dumping of used medical supplies outside the dumpster. Taken together, these reports suggest uneven housekeeping and waste management practices and potential lapses in infection prevention.
Staffing and professionalism are criticized in multiple ways. Reviewers call out specific leadership (the Director of Nursing, named Mary) as rude and unhelpful. There are also allegations of serious unprofessional conduct by direct care staff, including inappropriate sexual remarks by a CNA and a reported HIPAA/privacy violation. While “staff” is listed positively by some reviewers, the dominant tone around staff interactions in these summaries is distrustful and critical, especially regarding clinical responsiveness and behavior.
Services and daily life are described as limited. Several reviewers note limited activities (primarily television) and at least one reviewer calls meals poor, even though another notes a “great kitchen.” This contradiction indicates inconsistent experiences: some aspects of dining may be good in practice, but other reviewers experienced inadequate meals. Activities programming appears minimal, which can affect residents’ quality of life.
Management, transparency, and regulatory concerns are also prominent. Families report being discouraged from visiting because of the facility’s appearance, and multiple reviewers express intent to report the facility to state authorities. The lack of incident documentation and failure to notify families after adverse events are serious compliance and governance issues that may warrant regulatory attention.
In summary, the reviews portray Haskell Manor as having significant and systemic problems across clinical care, facility maintenance, cleanliness, staff professionalism, and activity programming. There are isolated positive notes—proximity to family, a praised kitchen, and some clean areas—but these are overshadowed by repeated allegations of medical neglect, safety incidents, water damage and mold, privacy violations, and poor maintenance. Prospective residents and families should weigh these repeated concerns heavily and consider seeking further verification (inspection reports, state surveys, direct tours, and recent family references) before making placement decisions. Regulatory follow-up and management intervention would be appropriate priorities to address the most serious issues raised in these summaries.
