Overall sentiment across the review summaries is mixed but leans toward concern due to recurrent themes about clinical management, safety, and communication. Multiple reviewers praised individual staff members and described compassionate, friendly caregivers who made a positive difference; specific staff (for example, Latrice and social worker Beth) received strong commendations. Some families reported a high level of attention and an effective hospital-to-home transition, and several comments emphasize clean rooms, a quaint atmosphere, and a welcoming environment. For a number of residents these positive personal interactions and small comforts (cookies, accommodating help) resulted in recommendations and relief for relatives.
However, a substantial portion of reviews raise serious and consistent negative issues. Communication problems are one of the most frequently mentioned concerns: families report poor or non-existent follow-up, difficulty reaching or getting timely responses from the social worker, and broader failures to keep relatives informed. Care planning and implementation appear inconsistent — reviewers cite care plans not being created or followed in a timely fashion and staff not intervening when problems were identified. Clinical delays are highlighted as a critical safety risk: one reviewer reported delayed test results taking roughly 72 hours and a rapid hospital transfer only after results arrived. There are multiple mentions of delayed clinical responses to changing conditions and a perceived failure to identify or manage clinical deterioration.
Safety and quality-of-care concerns are prominent. Several reviewers described poor nursing performance, cases of neglect or mistreatment, and an overall decline in care quality compared with prior experiences at the facility. Some reviews go so far as to reference state-level investigations and health department involvement after incidents (including a COVID-related room removal delay), suggesting regulatory attention and potentially significant lapses in protocols. Physician-level issues were also raised: at least one review characterized the doctor as the 'worst,' reporting a lack of assessment, refusal to prescribe pain medication, and refusal of treatment — which led families to relocate the resident to another facility. These accounts point to both systemic gaps in medical oversight and potentially unsafe clinical decision-making.
Operational and experiential critiques are also present. Dining was criticized for small portions and specific diabetes-related concerns, leaving some residents hungry and worried about nutrition management. The physical plant receives mixed feedback: while rooms are called clean and the facility is described as quaint, multiple reviewers said the building is older and needs updating. The rehabilitation experience was described as excellent by some and 'horrible' by others, indicating significant variability in rehab outcomes and staff performance. Geographic distance for families (noted by those coming from New York) compounds these problems by making it harder for families to engage and monitor care.
In summary, the reviews describe a facility with strong individual staff who can provide compassionate, attentive care, contrasted against troubling systemic issues in communication, clinical responsiveness, and safety oversight. Positive experiences tend to emphasize specific caregivers and day-to-day kindness, while negative experiences focus on lapses in clinical management, delayed test results and escalations, poor nursing intervention, and inadequate physician responsiveness. Families considering LECOM at Elmwood Gardens should weigh the potential for excellent personal caregiving against documented concerns about clinical processes, regulatory attention, and inconsistency of care; asking targeted questions about care-plan adherence, infection and testing protocols, physician coverage, staffing levels, and communication practices (including direct contacts for social work and nursing) would be prudent prior to placement.
