Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized, with some families and patients reporting excellent, compassionate care (particularly from the Physical Therapy department and certain nursing/staff members) while many others describe serious, systemic problems. The most consistent positive themes are strong praise for the Physical Therapy team, several individual staff members and CNAs who provided attentive, empathetic care, helpful social work and phone support, and evidence of recent investment and remodeling under new ownership. However, these positives sit alongside numerous, specific accounts of neglect, safety concerns, and administrative failures.
Care quality and safety are the most significant concerns. Multiple reviewers report understaffing and unsafe staffing ratios (one cited example was 2 CNAs for 17 dementia patients), delayed or absent basic care (long call-button response times, infrequent showers), and instances of neglect that led to adverse outcomes (a patient discharged with a gaping wound; a medication/pump running empty resulting in hospital readmission). There are also reports of infection-control failures and COVID-guideline violations, rooms holding contagious patients, and mold issues — including moldy food left on wheelchairs and moldy carpets — that raise hygiene and safety red flags. Several reviewers described equipment failures or shortages: missing or malfunctioning wheelchairs and walkers, broken heaters, faulty lights and blinds, and a dangerous AC window-unit cord dangerously routed over a resident’s bed.
Staffing and staff behavior are portrayed as very inconsistent. Many reviews praise individual employees as compassionate, hardworking, and family-oriented — CNAs who know residents, nurses who go above and beyond, and staff who helped arrange virtual visits during COVID. At the same time, a significant number of reviews describe rude, abusive, or unprofessional behavior: yelling at residents, refusing to share information with families, kicking visitors out, and staff with a 'not my patient, not my problem' attitude. High staff turnover and inexperienced personnel were repeatedly cited as contributing to poor continuity of care and a decline in service quality. Theft of belongings was mentioned in multiple reviews, further damaging trust and safety perceptions.
Facility maintenance and environment also generated mixed feedback. Some reviewers found the building clean-smelling and noted improvements under new ownership, while others listed numerous maintenance failures: holes in walls, dirty or stained chairs, broken fixtures, a flooded bathroom during a power outage, and freezing or excessively hot rooms due to HVAC problems. There is a particular community-safety concern about the facility’s access route: an unpaved, dusty, hazardous road that reportedly forces residents in wheelchairs to traverse uneven terrain — and reviewers say the facility has been unwilling to cooperate to address the problem.
Administrative and operational issues recurred across reviews. Families reported discharge coordination problems, paperwork and insurance transfer delays, overcharging, and difficulty arranging in-house doctor visits or outpatient transport. Several complaints concerned rushed or poorly planned discharges (including transfers to facilities that were not prepared to accept the patient) and a family left to assume unexpected costs. Communication gaps — both refusal to share information and poor responsiveness — compounded these issues. Conversely, a number of reviewers praised prompt phone support and specific staff who navigated paperwork successfully, illustrating variability depending on who was on duty.
Dining and daily living received mixed comments. Some families appreciated well-presented meals and dietary alternatives, while others described bland food, dry chicken, and generally poor meal quality. Hygiene and odor complaints (urine odor, unclean facilities) were concerning to some reviewers and suggest inconsistent housekeeping standards.
Management and leadership impressions are split but trend negative in many accounts. Numerous reviewers accused management of poor coordination, tolerance of abusive behavior, bullying tactics, and a lack of accountability. However, several reviews mentioned new ownership and visible improvements, renovation activity, and positive changes in team attitude, suggesting that outcomes may be changing over time but unevenly across shifts and departments.
Notable patterns and takeaways: the facility appears capable of delivering excellent, even outstanding care in pockets — especially in Physical Therapy and when certain staff members are present. At the same time, there are repeated, detailed reports of systemic failures: understaffing, safety risks, inconsistent infection control, maintenance problems, poor communication, and administration errors that have led to serious harm for some patients. Prospective residents and families should be aware of this wide variance in experience. Specific red flags from the reviews that warrant direct inquiry during tours or admissions include staffing ratios for dementia units, how the facility manages infection control and mold issues, maintenance and HVAC reliability, discharge planning processes, policies on visitation and communication, theft prevention, and what concrete steps new management has taken to resolve the legacy problems cited by multiple reviewers.
In short, Chehalem Post Acute elicits strongly mixed reviews: it can provide compassionate, high-quality care under the right circumstances (notably PT and some dedicated staff), but persistent reports of neglect, safety issues, maintenance failures, and administrative dysfunction are prominent and must be carefully explored and monitored by families considering placement.
