The reviews present a highly mixed and polarized picture of Oak Hills Care Center Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation. A substantial number of accounts praise individual caregivers — nurses, CNAs, and activity staff — for compassionate, personalized treatment, and describe a warm, family-like atmosphere with engaging activities and friendly front-line staff. Several reviewers single out an active events calendar (karaoke multiple times per week, impersonators, daily games, arts and crafts, bingo) and note that residents appear engaged and happy. There are also multiple reports that recent management changes and facility remodeling have produced noticeable improvements, including a praised new memory care unit and a more energetic administrator who is approachable and responsive to families.
Contrasting strongly with those positive reports are repeated, serious allegations of administrative dysfunction, safety lapses, and sanitation problems. Many reviewers describe the administration as disorganized, ineffective, and difficult to reach; complaints include unanswered phone messages, slow or nonexistent email responses, and a general lack of transparent communication. Several accounts say administration ignored knowledgeable staff or dug in rather than addressing issues. Reviewers also report funding- and staffing-related constraints (including references to state funding limiting overtime) that they believe contribute to understaffing and degraded care.
A number of reviews describe neglect and clinical safety failures: residents reportedly went without bathing for days, experienced long delays for basic needs (e.g., bedpans), had medications misdispensed, or did not receive timely narcotics such as morphine. There are serious allegations of resident harm including dehydration, hospitalization, and at least one report of a death during a short stay; reviewers express concern that these events were linked to staffing and care quality. Safety lapses extend to wandering incidents (a patient reportedly found in underwear outside their room) and claims that dentures or other critical personal items were lost. Belongings being ransacked, missing wallets, and laundry items disappearing (bras missing) are recurring themes.
Sanitation and food quality are another major fault line across reviews. Multiple reviewers report strong odors, visible stains and residue (including alleged old blood), flies, and generally dirty rooms. Food is frequently criticized as cold or greasy and not meeting nutritional needs; one reviewer said pork was served despite dietary restrictions. Some reviews explicitly call out lack of a dietician. At the same time, other visitors note clean common areas such as the dining room and lobby, demonstrating inconsistent conditions across units or time periods.
Allegations of theft and unprofessional staff conduct appear repeatedly and are particularly troubling: reviewers allege narcotics theft, staff theft of resident card information, and dishonest explanations from staff about missing items. Several reviewers describe staff who appeared impaired or non-sober, and others say they overheard staff making untrue statements. These accounts, if accurate, raise substantial concerns about resident safety, medication security, and staff vetting/supervision.
Communication and operational issues are a pervasive theme. Families report being left uninformed about transfers, discharges, or room reassignments (including moves without family consultation), and reports of lost dentures or wallets with inadequate follow-up are typical. Conversely, a number of reviewers commended administrators who were transparent, willing to work with families, and open to involving external advocates like the state ombudsman. This contrast suggests uneven leadership presence and responsiveness depending on timing, specific administrators, or recent management changes.
Overall sentiment is sharply divided: while some families encourage visits and praise the staff’s caregiving and the active programming, many others issue strong warnings — some explicitly recommending the facility be closed — citing unsafe, unsanitary, or neglectful care. Several reviewers note that the facility has improved since certain management changes (with positive comments about the memory care unit and activity director), implying that quality may be changing over time. However, the frequency and severity of negative reports (medication issues, alleged theft, cleanliness problems, communication failures, and safety incidents) are significant and warrant caution.
For potential residents and families considering Oak Hills, the reviews suggest: (1) visit in person and observe current conditions, staff interactions, and activity engagement; (2) ask specific questions about staffing levels, medication administration protocols, theft prevention, and how the facility documents and responds to incidents; (3) request references from recent families and ask about changes since any reported management turnover; and (4) verify licensing, inspection records, and any ombudsman or state survey actions. Because the reviews show both commendable caregiving and serious, recurring concerns, prospective families should perform careful, timely due diligence and monitor care closely if choosing this facility.
