The reviews present a highly mixed and polarized picture of Wewoka Healthcare Center. Multiple reviewers praise clinical nursing staff and some ancillary roles: several comments call nurses 'amazing,' housekeeping 'rocks,' and the dietician 'awesome.' Reviewers also note that many residents are pleasant and supportive, and a few corporate contacts by name (Codi, Carol, Susans) and the Director of Nursing receive explicit praise. These positive comments suggest that there are pockets of strong caregiving, cleanliness, and administrative responsiveness within the facility.
However, negatives are frequent and grave. A dominant theme is inconsistent and often poor staff behavior: many reviews describe rude, unprofessional, or uncaring employees, workplace drama among staff and residents, and allegations that employees are treated poorly by management. Several reviewers characterize staff performance as lazy or inadequate; unfulfilled requests and general neglect are recurring complaints. There are multiple specific and troubling care-quality issues reported, including a resident not being showered for five days and broader statements that the facility is 'not fit for anyone to live there.' Such accounts point to lapses in basic personal care and oversight.
Administrative and business-office problems are a major and repeatedly cited concern. Reviewers report payroll errors, paycheck delays, account number mistakes, repeated runarounds, and reliance on paper checks that arrive late. There are warnings to be cautious about the business office and time clock. More serious administrative allegations include reports of an aggressive administrator who demanded signing over of income. These patterns indicate systemic issues with payroll, billing, and potentially unethical administrative conduct as perceived by multiple reviewers.
Facility and safety concerns appear in the reviews as well. Reports mention bad odors, thin linens, and environmental problems such as a gas smell and an excessively hot environment. Such descriptions raise questions about building maintenance, laundry/linen quality, and resident comfort and safety. Several reviewers also reference substantiated complaints and a state investigation; at least one reviewer links their experience with a death. While these are reported by reviewers and should be independently verified, they contribute to a pattern of serious allegations that prospective residents and family members would likely want to investigate further.
Dining and ancillary services receive negative feedback from several reviewers who describe the food as poor, while others praised the dietician specifically. This suggests variability between food planning or nutrition oversight and meal preparation or delivery. Similarly, reviews indicate that while some aides and nursing personnel provide excellent care, other frontline staff and charge nurses are described as rude or unprofessional, producing highly inconsistent experiences for residents and families.
Overall sentiment is highly polarized: some reviewers speak warmly about residents and certain staff members and say the Director of Nursing has driven improvements, while many others describe systemic problems in care, staffing, administration, payroll, hygiene, and safety. The most actionable patterns are recurring administrative/payroll failures, allegations of poor personal care, environmental/safety concerns, and inconsistent staff professionalism. Anyone considering this facility should weigh the documented strengths (notably strong nurses, housekeeping, and certain leadership/corporate contacts) against the repeated and serious concerns, and should seek up-to-date, independent verification of regulatory findings, staffing levels, payroll practices, and incident history before making placement decisions.
