Overall sentiment: The reviews for Thunder Care and Rehab are highly polarized but lean strongly negative in frequency and severity. A substantial portion of reviewers report serious care failures: neglect (including leaving residents soiled), medical neglect (missed doctor visits and delayed or missing medications), multiple falls and fall-related injuries, bed sores, and in at least some accounts hospitalization and alleged death. These reports are accompanied by numerous allegations of unprofessional and uncaring behavior by staff and leadership, poor communication with families, and operational problems such as unanswered phones, visitor access issues, and chaotic conditions. While a minority of reviews praise individual caregivers and certain operational areas (housekeeping, specific nurses, friendly staff), the dominant themes are safety, neglect, and management failures.
Care quality and safety: The most recurrent and serious theme is compromised resident safety and basic care. Multiple reviewers describe residents being left in urine and feces for hours, being left in bed after soiling, missed or late administration of medications, and alleged failures to obtain timely medical attention. There are repeated mentions of multiple falls, head injuries, seizures, pressure injuries/bed sores, and claims that residents were moved to the hospital as a result. Some reviews even allege the facility 'killed a patient' or contributed to death; while those are allegations rather than confirmed facts, they reflect extreme family distress and severe perceived care lapses. Reports of short-staffing and unskilled staff recur as contributing factors to these safety concerns.
Staff and communication: Reviews show a split: some staff members and nurses are singled out positively (Carolyn and Kim are named as caring), and several reviews call aides hard-working and compassionate. However, many more reviews accuse staff of being rude, uncaring, or deceitful—"sweet to your face but cruel to patients." Families frequently report poor communication: phones not answered, no notification when residents are hospitalized, difficulty contacting out-of-state relatives, and refusal to transport residents. There are also allegations of unprofessional behavior by management, including an administrator who curses at staff and conducts tours that misrepresent the home. Reports of responsiveness vary widely by shift or individual; this inconsistency itself is a notable pattern.
Facility, cleanliness, and environment: Opinions on cleanliness and environment are mixed. Some reviewers praise cleanliness, housekeeping, and laundry; others describe the facility as filthy, in disrepair, crowded, chaotic, and lacking outdoor spaces. Specific complaints include dirty rooms, dusty surfaces, unclean toilets, and even a report that the staff fridge contained only wine. Limited shower slots and restricted access to fresh fruit and vegetables are mentioned as shortcomings. Visitor access problems (broken doorbell, long waits to enter) also appear repeatedly, creating friction for families and potentially delaying visits.
Dining and activities: Dining reviews are mixed but skew negative. Some reviewers call the food decent, while others describe meals as cold, inedible, or lacking fresh produce. Activity and therapy concerns appear in the form of no exercise and limited rehabilitative attention, especially troubling for residents with mobility or fall risk issues. Reports of overmedication leaving residents "zombie-like" and limited engagement further suggest inadequate therapeutic or social programming for many residents.
Management, accountability, and systemic concerns: Many reviewers identify systemic management problems: lax accountability, mismanagement, and failure to address family concerns. There are multiple mentions of formal complaints—police reports and Adult Protective Services involvement—indicating that some families pursued external investigation due to perceived abuse or neglect. Several reviewers explicitly call for closure or sale of the facility. Conversely, a few reviews praise new or specific administrators and describe positive changes, indicating possible variability over time or between leadership teams. The polarized comments—some families very satisfied, others vehemently dissatisfied—suggest inconsistent standards of care across shifts, staff members, or resident cohorts.
Patterns, reliability, and context: The collection of summaries shows clear patterns: frequent allegations of neglect and safety incidents, chronic communication failures, operational problems (staffing, access, hygiene), and mixed but occasionally strong praise for certain employees or services. The intensity and severity of negative comments (hospitalizations, APS/police involvement, alleged death) elevate the level of concern beyond typical complaint patterns. At the same time, positive reports about hardworking aides, certain nurses, and specific operational strengths indicate that good care may occur in pockets or during particular shifts.
Conclusion: Based on these reviews, Thunder Care and Rehab appears to have significant, recurring problems in clinical care, resident safety, communication, and management oversight, though there are also instances of competent and compassionate staff and acceptable services. The risk profile suggested by the reviews is high: families should be cautious, ask targeted questions about staffing levels, fall prevention protocols, medication management, infection control/cleanliness, family notification policies, and complaint resolution processes. Prospective residents and families should verify recent inspection reports, ask for references from current families, and consider in-person visits during multiple shifts to assess consistency of care. Current families experiencing issues should consider escalating concerns to supervisors, request documentation, and, when necessary, contact adult protective services or regulatory bodies to ensure resident safety.
