Overall sentiment in the collected reviews is highly polarized: a significant number of reviewers praise the facility, owners, and specific staff members for compassionate, family-like care, while an equally important and troubling set of reviews alleges consistent and serious care failures, safety hazards, and management problems. The positive comments center on individual staff who are described as caring, dedicated, and going above and beyond, and on a clean, attractive environment in common areas. The negative comments, however, include multiple reports of severe clinical lapses, environmental hazards, and troubling interpersonal conduct that together represent recurring themes and safety concerns.
Care quality: Reviews present a split picture. Several families report that caregivers provided excellent, loving support and that residents received attentive care—these reviewers frequently name staff members (Danny, Britt/Britton, Kelly, Francine) and describe the facility as a second family. Conversely, numerous reviews allege serious clinical neglect: inadequate feeding leading to dehydration and kidney problems, missing pain patches and prolonged severe pain, failure to notify families about worsening wounds, multiple open wounds progressing toward sepsis and pneumonia, and alleged starvation or deterioration that required moving the resident out. There are also repeated reports of falls and insufficient assistance with toileting and bathroom transfers. These conflicting narratives indicate inconsistent care quality across residents, shifts, or units.
Staff and interpersonal dynamics: Staff behavior is another area with strong divergence. Many reviews laud individual caregivers and maintenance personnel as helpful, kind, and above-and-beyond. Yet other reviewers report troubling staff conduct: yelling at residents, using profanity when assisting, bullying of new CNAs by more experienced CNAs, staff dishonesty, and allegations that some staff or managers cover up incidents. Multiple reviews allege that staff refused to hospitalize residents or delayed escalation of care. The pattern suggests variability in training, supervision, and culture—some teams operate warmly and professionally, while others are accused of neglectful or abusive conduct.
Facilities and maintenance: The facility’s public areas and decor receive positive mentions (clean hallways, flowers, holiday decorations). However, serious maintenance and environmental complaints appear repeatedly: black mold, active water leaks, and claims that management refused to fix those hazards. Reviewers describe mold and leaks as creating health risks and even attribute cognitive decline to mold exposure. At least some reviews allege that management charged rent despite refusing to remediate safety hazards. This contrast—pleasant common areas versus alleged unresolved environmental risks—indicates that cosmetic upkeep may not reflect underlying building-system issues in all cases.
Safety, possessions, and privacy: Several reviewers raise alarm about resident safety and property security. Allegations include theft or disappearance of personal items (including teeth and other belongings), missing medications or pain patches, and nighttime disturbances caused by shared-room situations (roommates keeping lights on, noisy behavior). Pull cords and semi-private rooms are noted as features, but shared-room dynamics and inadequate staff response to disturbances are recurring complaints. Reports that families were not timely notified about wounds or incidents amplify concerns about transparency and resident safety.
Management, admissions, and billing: Reviews describe management in very different terms—some call owners caring with hearts of gold, others accuse management of negligence and covering up incidents. Admissions information is reported as inconsistent; pamphlets and unseen apartments led to confusion over what utilities and services are included (e.g., water and trash included, meals extra). At least one review mentions a small monthly allowance ($50) that reviewers felt was insufficient. There are also comments that an admissions/review process was in progress or that families were reviewing placement decisions in light of care concerns.
Notable patterns and implications: The most frequent and consequential themes are inconsistent care quality and significant safety allegations (wounds, infections, dehydration, falls), plus serious environmental complaints (mold and leaks). Positive reports tend to focus on specific staff members and short-stay rehab outcomes, while negative reports often describe sustained clinical decline, alleged neglect, or systemic problems. The juxtaposition of strong praise for individual employees with severe accusations about clinical and environmental safety suggests variability by unit, shift, or management oversight rather than uniformly good or bad performance.
For someone evaluating Pleasant Valley Health Care, these reviews indicate the importance of targeted due diligence: verify infection and wound-care protocols, request documentation on incident reporting and family notification practices, ask about mold and maintenance remediation history and inspection records, review staff training and turnover, and meet the specific caregivers who would be assigned. The mixed nature of feedback—very positive reports about people and culture alongside very serious allegations—means prospective residents and families should inspect the facility in person, request recent inspection reports and staffing ratios, and seek references from families whose care needs closely match those of the prospective resident.
