The reviews for Marlow Nursing and Rehabilitation present a highly polarized picture, with some families strongly praising the facility and others reporting severe, even catastrophic, failures. Positive comments center on direct-care staff: multiple reviewers describe caregivers as compassionate, attentive, personable, and treating residents like family. Housekeeping receives specific positive mention (including a named employee, Becky). Several reviewers say the facility felt very clean and that new management had begun to improve operations, with helpful and respectful administrators and five-star praise for staff who met physical care needs and maintained good communication with families.
Counterbalancing these positives are repeated and serious negative allegations that raise safety and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reviews allege neglect manifesting as delayed responses to call bells, ignored requests for assistance, and neglect-related accidents. More alarming reports include medication overdose and at least one death reportedly connected to care, as well as pressure injuries (bed sores), dehydration, and possible post-surgical bone infection. These clinical safety concerns are coupled with complaints about inaccurate or insufficient updates to families, which exacerbate distrust and worry among relatives.
A recurrent theme concerns facility culture and management. Several reviewers describe a toxic or hostile administrative environment characterized by favoritism, discrimination (specifically claims of bias against Hispanic workers), and alleged corruption. Some statements even allege that the facility employed individuals using methamphetamine or otherwise unfit for caregiving roles, with lax disciplinary action when problems occurred. These cultural and governance complaints are linked by reviewers to poor oversight and accountability, and at least one commenter indicated that issues had triggered investigations or accusations of neglect.
There is also a split in impressions of physical operations and cleanliness. While some reviewers explicitly call the building very clean and praise housekeeping, others describe the facility as filthy, chaotic, and disorganized. Dining and food-safety expertise is questioned by several reviewers who believe staff lack adequate food safety knowledge. Allegations of abuse, attempted theft of resident belongings, and staff dishonesty appear in multiple negative summaries, further eroding trust in the facility’s safety and ethical standards.
Overall sentiment is mixed to sharply divided. On one side are families who express gratitude, note respectful new management, and highly recommend the facility for compassionate, personalized care. On the other side are families issuing urgent warnings—do not place loved ones here—citing neglect, unsafe medication practices, infection and injury, hostile administration, and potential cover-ups. This polarization suggests inconsistent performance: some units or staff provide excellent, loving care, while other areas or shifts may suffer from serious systemic problems.
For prospective residents and families, the patterns in these reviews indicate the need for careful, hands-on evaluation before placement and ongoing monitoring if a loved one is admitted. Important steps (based on the issues raised) would be to visit several times at different times of day, check response times to call bells, ask about staffing levels and background checks, verify medication administration procedures, request documentation of incident reporting and outcomes of any investigations, and maintain active communication with caregivers. Given the severity of some allegations (medication errors, death, abuse, and infection), families who see these negative reports should consider contacting state survey agencies to confirm the facility’s regulatory history and any current investigations before making placement decisions.
