Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: a sizable portion of reviewers praise Claremont Nursing & Rehabilitation Center for caring staff, effective therapy programs, and a pleasant physical environment, while another substantial group describes serious quality and safety failures including neglect, missed medications, hygiene problems, and leadership breakdown. The pattern across reviews is inconsistent performance, with many accounts of excellent individualized care and successful short-term rehabilitations contrasted against recurring reports of dangerous lapses in basic nursing care.
Care quality and medical safety are the most frequent and serious themes among negative reviews. Multiple reviewers allege missed medications (explicitly including insulin), medication mix-ups, blood sugar not being tested, delayed or omitted pain management, refusal or delay of diagnostics, and even reports of severe outcomes such as respiratory distress and fluid overload. There are many accounts of poor personal care: residents found with crusted food on their faces, soiled gowns, greasy hair, extended periods without showers, and being left in urine or feces. Pressure injuries and bedsores were reported repeatedly, along with large untreated wounds and infections from improper bandage care. Fall risk is another major concern: reports cite actual falls, insufficient fall-prevention equipment (no guard rails, beds improperly set up), and unsafe practices (call buttons placed on the floor). Together these issues point to both clinical and basic caregiving failures in a subset of cases.
Staffing and management appear to be key drivers of variability. Many reviews mention chronic understaffing, heavy use of agency staff, high turnover, and a perceived absence of consistent leadership or visible management (administrators not returning calls). Where staffing is described as adequate and stable, families frequently report compassionate, timely care, good communication, and noticeable rehabilitation progress. Where staffing is inadequate, reviewers describe long call-bell waits (sometimes hours), delayed toileting assistance, and staff who appear disengaged or unprofessional. Several reviewers explicitly noted plans to report the facility to state agencies or to pursue legal action; others referenced health department reports or expressed concern about changes in ownership and management transparency.
The facility and amenities receive mixed feedback. The rehab wing is repeatedly described as newer or updated, with specific praise for the therapy department—physical, occupational, and speech therapy were widely credited with producing good outcomes. Some families highlight pleasant features such as spacious rooms, two courtyards, chapel access, and tastefully arranged dining areas. Conversely, other reviewers describe dirty rooms, bad odors, pests (gnats near food trays, mice), and trash left for long periods. Dining quality is sharply divided: some reviewers praise a varied, seasoned menu and even “china service,” while many others report cold, unappetizing meals that sit in unheated boxes for lengthy periods, food left on trays, and portions that are inappropriate for some residents.
Activities, social services, and rehabilitation offerings are often noted positively. Multiple reviewers listed a range of programs, transportation assistance, and active therapy teams that keep residents engaged and help them progress toward discharge. Social workers and discharge/insurance assistance were also mentioned as helpful in several accounts. However, a subset of reviews indicated that therapy resources were underutilized or access was inconsistent, sometimes due to staffing constraints.
Communication with families and professionalism of staff are mixed themes. There are many glowing descriptions of staff who treat residents “like family,” provide timely updates, and show patience and professionalism—especially within memory care and therapy teams. On the other hand, many families reported unprofessional or rude staff, inconsistent documentation, delayed or missing responses from nursing leadership, and incidents of items going missing with slow or defensive explanations. These conflicting accounts suggest the experience a family receives can vary greatly depending on the unit, shift, and specific personnel involved.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with significant strengths—particularly in therapy/rehab and in pockets of very caring staff and well-kept spaces—but also significant and recurring weaknesses involving basic nursing care, medication administration, staffing stability, cleanliness, and management responsiveness. Because of this high variability, prospective residents and families should exercise caution: schedule an in-person tour during busy times (meal service and shift changes), ask specific questions about nurse-to-resident ratios, agency staff usage, medication administration protocols (including insulin and blood sugar monitoring), fall-prevention measures, infection control, and leadership continuity. It is also advisable to check recent state inspection/health department reports, speak directly with current families on the units of interest, and verify how the facility handles complaints and clinical escalation. The reviews suggest that while many people have very positive, even exceptional experiences at Claremont, others report conditions that warrant formal complaints and immediate intervention—so careful, up-to-date vetting is essential.
