Overall sentiment in the reviews for St. Ann's Skilled Nursing & Therapy is highly mixed, with a clear divide between strong praise for individual staff and programs and serious, recurring concerns about clinical care, staffing, and management. Many reviewers praise specific caregivers, long‑tenured staff, and certain administrators for compassionate, attentive, family‑like care; others describe neglectful, unresponsive, or unsafe practices that led to rehospitalization, wounds, or families removing loved ones. This creates an uneven portrait in which outcomes and experiences appear to depend heavily on unit, shift, and who is on duty.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most frequent and consequential themes. Positive accounts describe excellent rehabilitation, attentive nursing, effective hospice and end‑of‑life care, daily updates to families, and successful recoveries. Conversely, many reviewers report alarming lapses: medication errors and delays (including medications given despite allergies), missing physician or pharmacy orders, slow or absent responses to call lights, rough handling by some aides, and significant clinical events (bed sores within days, dehydration, urinary tract infections requiring hospitalization). Safety incidents are also reported — oxygen left off, an alleged concealment of a fall/hip injury, and at least one death tied in reviewers’ narratives to inadequate post‑operative care — raising serious concerns about monitoring, handovers, and clinician attention.
Staffing, training, and staff behavior are recurring and polarizing topics. Numerous reviewers say staff are caring, loving, compassionate, and willing to facilitate virtual visits and social engagement; several note strong retention, a cohesive team under specific leaders (including repeated praise for an administrator named Mary Peacock in some reports), and effective COVID precautions. At the same time, many accounts describe chronic understaffing, overworked caregivers, forgetfulness, reluctance to assist, favoritism among leadership, and even aggressive or coercive behavior when families raise concerns. These inconsistencies suggest pockets of excellence coexisting with systemic workforce challenges that affect resident care and family confidence.
Facilities, cleanliness, and infection control show similarly mixed results. Positive reviews highlight clean, up‑to‑date spaces, pleasant grounds, a spacious dining room, and well‑maintained equipment; reviewers also praise amenities like on‑site hair salons and shuttle service. Yet a large number of negative reports cite soiled rooms, urine or fecal odors in halls, failure to change bedding, lack of hand sanitizer, and limited cleaning during outbreaks — with at least one specific accusation about a flu outbreak and lack of increased cleaning. Room quality varies: some residents had shared rooms with ample space and recliners, while others describe very small rooms without phones, closets, bed rails, or even sheets and report dingy conditions and poor odors.
Therapy, activities, and dining are important differentiators in many reviews. The activities program receives frequent praise for creativity, musical events, weekly sing‑alongs, church services, and opportunities for socialization that improved residents’ quality of life. Some individuals specifically note that their family member flourished socially and enjoyed the programming. Therapy and rehabilitation receive both high marks where staff and rehab teams were engaged and helped residents recover fully, and sharp criticism where therapy rooms were described as tiny and lacking equipment, therapy not started or infrequent, or poor coordination delayed recovery.
Dining and food quality are another divided area: several reviewers report very good meals with no complaints, while multiple others call the food “disgusting,” report broken meal promises (soup requested but not delivered), and say meal experiences contributed to a depressing atmosphere. Administrative and communication issues compound family frustrations: reviewers cite poor communication from leadership, unclear lines of authority, disorganized intake, billing problems, and alleged retaliatory behavior when complaints are raised. Some reviews describe positive, open communication from particular directors and staff, indicating that communication quality varies by manager and unit.
Notable patterns and risks that emerge across reviews: inconsistent standards across the facility (some wings/teams provide excellent care while others do not); recurring understaffing affecting responsiveness, hygiene, and safety; occasional serious clinical failures (medication mistakes, wounds, infections, falls) that led to rehospitalization or family intervention; and management variability — some reviewers report transformative leadership and improved performance under new administration, while others report ongoing disorganization, favoritism, and even state complaints. Families considering St. Ann’s should be aware of these polarized experiences and consider visiting in person, asking specific questions about staffing levels, infection control, therapy resources, and recent regulatory history, and requesting references from families currently using the exact unit they are considering.
In summary, St. Ann’s offers genuine strengths: compassionate staff in many areas, robust activities and social programming, some well‑run rehabilitation and hospice services, and parts of the facility that are clean and well maintained. However, the frequency and severity of negative reports — from understaffing and poor hygiene to medication and safety incidents — are substantial and consistent enough that prospective residents and families should perform careful, targeted due diligence. The facility appears capable of providing excellent, even transformative care in some instances, but variability and systemic issues have led to serious adverse experiences for others. Visiting, asking for unit‑specific staffing and outcome data, and reassessing periodically if a loved one is placed there would be prudent steps based on these reviews.
