Overall impression: Reviews of Greenery Center for Rehab and Nursing are strongly polarized. A large number of reviewers describe an excellent experience — especially for short-term rehabilitation — praising therapy outcomes, specific staff members, the cleanliness of the facility, and the home-like atmosphere. At the same time, a smaller but significant cluster of reviews report serious safety, hygiene, and staffing problems including infections, neglect, and missed care. The result is a mixed but patternable portrait: many families and patients report exemplary clinical and emotional care, while a notable minority report dangerous lapses. Prospective residents and families will find both very positive success stories and troubling warnings in these reviews.
Care quality and therapy: Therapy (physical and occupational) is one of the facility’s most consistently praised services. Multiple reviewers describe state-of-the-art equipment, certified specialists, large rehab areas, and measurable outcomes — patients discharged home walking or without assistive devices. Several reviewers called rehab a “miracle” or “above and beyond.” However, therapy experiences are not universal: some reviewers report mediocre or ineffective rehab with no meaningful improvement. More seriously, there are multiple reports of inadequate wound care, bedsores from lack of repositioning, and infections (MRSA, VRE, UTIs) linked to poor hygiene and handwashing lapses. Medication management also shows variability: many reviewers note timely and correct medication administration, while others describe delays, quick medication administration without water, poor explanations, and occasional mistakes.
Staffing, caregiver behavior, and responsiveness: Staff behavior is another major dividing line. Many reviews emphasize compassionate, dedicated, skilled, and personable staff — nurses, CNAs, therapists, social workers and administrators are praised repeatedly, and some staff are named and commended for going above and beyond. The atmosphere is frequently described as family-like, warm, and respectful, with staff facilitating meaningful family moments and end-of-life visits. Conversely, several reviews document rude or uncaring staff, ignored call bells, long response times, lack of bathroom assistance, residents left soiled or outdoors, and dependence on temporary workers. Staffing shortages are explicitly mentioned in multiple summaries and appear to contribute to delayed responses and inconsistent care quality.
Facility condition and environment: The physical environment is described very positively by many reviewers: remodeled wings, modern and clean common areas, no odors, spotless rooms, pleasant dining areas, and an appealing outdoor patio. Renovations and new management are credited with improvements. Yet others describe the facility as dirty, with strong urine/feces odors, stained linens, filth visible after evening hours, and very small rooms and bathrooms that are hard to navigate with a wheelchair. This contrast suggests variability across time, wings, or shifts — some areas and times are kept very clean and well maintained while others are reported to suffer from neglect.
Dining, activities, and amenities: Dining is commonly praised as restaurant-style, varied, and tasty; specific items and staff in the kitchen receive positive mentions. Amenities like same-day laundry, beautician services, vending/snacks, reliable transportation, free parking, and engagement with visitors (meals, dog visits) are listed as advantages. Activities programs are consistently noted as robust — bingo, arts & crafts, music, and spiritual offerings (Bible study and church services) contribute to resident engagement. A few reviewers noted calendar items were not always announced on the day, indicating some breakdowns in activity communication.
Management, communication, and administration: Management and specific administrators receive mixed reviews. Multiple posts praise accessible, responsive leadership and helpful social workers; several reviewers name administrators and social workers positively. On the other hand, some families report poor communication, infrequent care conferences, difficulty obtaining updates, and phone systems that were unreliable. These mixed accounts mirror the broader pattern of highly variable experiences depending on timing and staff on duty.
Notable patterns and cautions: The most recurrent red flags are hygiene/infection reports and incidents of neglect. While many reviews celebrate cleanliness and infection control, the presence of serious allegations (MRSA/VRE, bedsores, residents left in feces or outdoors, unsanitary briefs) in multiple reviews cannot be ignored and indicate potential systemic or shift-based problems. Staffing shortages and the use of temporary staff are repeatedly named as contributors to delayed responses, missed care, and variable skill levels. At the same time, multiple strong positive narratives — particularly around rehab success stories and compassionate end-of-life care — demonstrate that the facility can and does provide high-quality care for many residents.
Bottom line: Greenery Center shows clear strengths in rehabilitation services, therapy resources, a number of highly dedicated and compassionate staff, modernized areas, and engaging resident life. However, significant inconsistencies show up across reviews — primarily concerning hygiene/infection control, staff responsiveness, and occasional neglect. These mixed signals suggest that outcomes at Greenery may depend heavily on staffing levels, specific units or wings, and time of day/shift. Families considering Greenery should weigh the numerous positive therapy and staff experiences against the severity of the negative reports, and proactively inquire about current infection-control measures, staffing ratios, wound-care protocols, recent survey citations or corrective actions, and to visit during different times (including evenings) to verify consistent standards of care.
