Overall sentiment: The reviews for Meadow Crest Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center are highly polarized but skew substantially toward negative experiences. Many reviewers describe serious quality and safety concerns — persistent cleanliness problems, understaffing, missed medications and personal care, ignored call bells, and unprofessional staff behavior. At the same time, a nontrivial subset of reviews recounts excellent, compassionate care: dedicated nurses and aides, outstanding physical therapy outcomes, pleasant rooms, good meals, and staff members who go above and beyond (names like Abby, Kendall, and Amanda are cited positively). This creates a pattern of inconsistent delivery where outcomes appear to hinge on shift, unit, or particular staff present rather than consistent facility-wide standards.
Care quality and safety: The most frequent and concerning themes are lapses in basic care and safety. Multiple reviewers reported residents not being bathed, left in soiled clothing, missed vital medications (including pain meds), and not being routinely checked. There are multiple reports of falls that families were not informed about, residents slumped in wheelchairs, and broken lifts or equipment. Infection-control and clinical-safety breaches were reported (nurses not wearing gloves, dirty bandages on floors, old toothbrushes under beds, overflowing sharps containers, unsecured narcotics, and medicines left with EMS). These specific allegations point to systemic problems that risk resident health and safety and have led some reviewers to file state complaints or call for the facility to be shut down.
Staffing, professionalism, and communication: Many complaints tie the facility's problems to chronic understaffing and poor staff training. Families described aides and nurses as distracted (on phones or with headphones), rude, hostile or indifferent; some staff were accused of ignoring call bells, huffing when bells rang, or eating on the job. Conversely, numerous reviewers praised individual staff members as compassionate, calming, and attentive — often crediting named employees and the physical therapy team for remarkable recoveries. Management and administrative responsiveness are also inconsistent in reviews: some families describe responsive social workers and caring leadership, while others report non-existent management, unanswered phones at the front desk, pass-the-buck communication, bed-hold policy violations, and aggressive interactions that resulted in refusal of re-entry after hospital transfers.
Facilities and cleanliness: Reports on the building itself vary widely. Several reviewers describe an older, poorly maintained facility with tiny rooms, overcrowded shared bathrooms (examples of four residents sharing a bathroom), broken fixtures, garbage under beds, stained and un-mopped floors, and pervasive urine or fecal odors. Others report the opposite: that the facility is clean, spacious in parts, with a beautiful patio and well-kept common areas. The strong divergence in experience suggests inconsistent housekeeping, variable infection-control practices, and potential differences between units or shifts.
Dining and therapy services: Dining evaluations are mixed but lean negative overall. Some residents and families praise the meals, good variety, and friendly kitchen staff; others report cold, inedible food, moldy or sour items, and trays being slammed or served ice-cold. Therapy and rehabilitation are a frequently cited bright spot: numerous reviews celebrate a highly effective physical therapy team that helped residents regain function quickly. However, some reviews call therapy “a joke,” noting minimal or superficial sessions. This again highlights inconsistency in program delivery.
Activities and resident life: Activity programming receives mixed feedback. Positive reviews mention engaging, frequent activities (some noting twice-daily programming) and accommodating personal celebrations. Negative reports describe poorly run activities, chaotic or loud programming, or residents left unengaged and distressed. Noise complaints — residents screaming in hallways and general boisterous staff behavior — were common among negative accounts and reflect an environment that can be distressing for both residents and visitors.
Regulatory, access, and procedural concerns: Several reviews describe troubling administrative failures: unanswered entrance phones, long waits outside for admission, lack of front-desk presence, keypad or door-access problems leading to safety/comfort issues, and alleged bed-hold policy violations with denied re-entry after ER visits. There are multiple references to state complaints, plans to report to health authorities, and calls from reviewers urging others to avoid the facility. These statements indicate caregivers and families have felt sufficiently alarmed to escalate concerns beyond the facility.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is inconsistent care quality. Families should expect significant variance: some residents experience compassionate, effective rehabilitation and attentive staff, while others report neglect, safety lapses, and poor hygiene. Common root issues appear to be chronic understaffing, inconsistent training and supervision, and unreliable housekeeping and infection-control practices. Positive reports emphasize particular staff members and the rehab/therapy teams, suggesting individual employees’ commitment can materially improve a resident’s experience despite systemic issues.
Implications for prospective families: Given the volume and seriousness of negative reports alongside some strong positive experiences, prospective residents and families should approach Meadow Crest with caution. If considering admission, visit in person multiple times and at different times of day/shifts; inspect rooms and bathrooms for cleanliness; ask about staffing levels, call-bell response times, infection-control practices, and medication administration protocols; request recent state inspection reports and corrective-action plans; meet with the therapy team and nurse manager; and seek references from recent families. The disparate reviews suggest that outcomes depend heavily on unit staffing and management responsiveness, so real-time observation and direct questions will be critical to assessing current conditions before placing a loved one here.
