The reviews for Avamere Transitional Care at Sunnyside are highly polarized and reveal a facility with substantial variability in patient experience. On one end, numerous reviewers report very positive experiences: professional, courteous, and cheerful staff who treat residents like family; effective physical therapy and rehab services (with Diane frequently praised); diligent social services that helped secure VA benefits; proactive communication from some staff leads; and a generally clean environment with good COVID-19 practices. Several reviewers describe strong recovery outcomes and attentive nursing and CNA care. These positive reports highlight pockets of strong clinical and rehabilitative practice and staff members who clearly go above and beyond.
Conversely, an equally large set of reviews details serious concerns about care quality, safety, and management. Multiple reviewers allege rude or unhelpful behavior (including caregivers yelling), front desk neglect, and broad unresponsiveness to call lights and requests for help. There are disturbing reports of patients not being checked on, not being fed for large portions of the day (including missed meals blamed on external reasons like ‘bird flu’), and failures to provide bathroom assistance despite repeated calls. Several reviews mention poor room hygiene—soiled sheets, diapers left in rooms, and foul odors—which raises infection-control and dignity concerns. Equipment and maintenance issues (for example, broken beds) and delayed delivery of essential mobility aids (walkers, wheelchairs, bed tables) were also reported.
Communication and management were recurring problem areas. Many reviewers described poor communication with families and POAs about declining health, routine care, and goals. Some reported suspected profit-driven clinical decisions (for example, antibiotic use or PRN refusals), conflicts with hospice providers, and refusal of needed PRN medications. Staff teamwork and dynamics problems, along with allegations that top management is unaccountable, were raised repeatedly. These governance and coordination issues appear to contribute to inconsistent care and distress for families trying to navigate transitions or pursue appropriate levels of care (some POAs actively sought alternate assisted living placements with the proper equipment).
Dining and dietary accommodations produced mixed feedback. A number of reviewers praised the food or said it was acceptable and that kitchen staff tried to accommodate needs. At the same time, several reviews called the food “gross,” reported missed meals, and specifically noted that gluten-free or gluten-intolerant accommodations were not consistently provided. Housekeeping and cleanliness also show a split pattern: while many reviewers described the facility as very clean with helpful staff, others reported dirty conditions, delayed cleaning requests, and items left in rooms, indicating variable performance across units or shifts.
Clinical quality issues reported ranged from neglectful care that led to bedsores or significant decline, to allegations of severe harm (including an accusation that a resident died due to facility care). These are serious claims that should prompt verification through official channels. At the same time, other reviewers explicitly stated they could not be happier with the treatment their family members received. The coexistence of glowing and strongly negative accounts suggests significant inconsistency in staffing, training, oversight, or culture—where individual teams or shifts may perform very well while others fall short.
Patterns and recommendations: the most frequent themes are inconsistency and unpredictability—some staff and services are excellent, others are neglectful or unresponsive. Specific high-risk areas flagged by reviewers include basic nursing care (feeding, toileting, wound prevention), timely response to call lights, cleanliness and maintenance, family communication, and coordination with hospice and outside providers. If evaluating this facility, request metrics or documentation on staffing ratios, wound/pressure ulcer incidence, call response times, infection control audits, dining accommodations for allergies/intolerances, mobility-aid provisioning policies, and complaints or citations from Oregon DHS. Meet with management to understand how they address the variability (staff training, supervision, and accountability), and consider speaking directly with physical therapy and social services staff (both of whom received positive mentions). Because reviews are sharply divided, an in-person visit, direct conversations with nurses/CNAs on shift, and review of state inspection records will provide the clearest picture of current performance.
In sum, Avamere Transitional Care at Sunnyside demonstrates both notable strengths (rehab services, some very caring staff, social services support) and serious reported weaknesses (neglectful care episodes, poor communication, hygiene and maintenance problems). The evidence points less to a uniformly good or bad facility and more to uneven performance that warrants careful scrutiny by prospective residents and families.
