Overall sentiment: Reviews of Hermitage are highly polarized, with a striking split between many very positive accounts praising caring staff and excellent therapy, and a substantial number of very negative reports describing neglect, unsanitary conditions, and serious safety problems. The volume and intensity of both praise and complaints suggest substantial inconsistency in experience: some families describe the facility as clean, compassionate, and rehabilitative, while others report conditions and care that they found unacceptable and dangerous.
Care quality and clinical concerns: A recurring theme is inconsistency in the quality of medical and personal care. Numerous reviews praise nurses, aides, and therapists for compassionate, professional, and effective care — including life-saving responses and strong rehabilitation outcomes. Conversely, other reviews contain serious clinical allegations: residents reportedly experienced inadequate monitoring (example: low oxygen saturation without oxygen provided), significant unexplained weight loss, failure to bathe residents regularly, refusal of care, misidentification, and insufficient assistance with toileting and dressing. Several families reported end-of-life management issues and at least one account connected poor care to a resident death. These conflicting reports point to unpredictable clinical oversight and variability in staff performance and training across shifts or units.
Staffing, professionalism, and communication: Many positive reviews emphasize attentive, friendly, and hardworking staff and responsive management, with named staff singled out for praise. However, a substantial number of reviews report understaffing, single nurses covering floors, rude or unprofessional behavior, and instances where staff would not answer calls or refused responsibilities. Phone responsiveness and communication from administration are frequently criticized: reports of unanswered calls, busy signals, lack of callbacks, and transfers that do not resolve concerns are common. Families repeatedly state they had to personally monitor tests, medications, meals, and cleanliness, indicating lack of confidence in staff communication and oversight.
Facility cleanliness and infection control: Reviews on the physical environment are similarly divided. Many families describe the building, rooms, and hallways as clean, well-sanitized, bright, and pleasant; dining areas were sometimes noted as nicely set with flowers. At the same time, other reviews give vivid descriptions of unacceptable hygiene: dirty bathrooms, overflowing diapers, excrement on toilet seats, dirty sinks, cobwebs, dust, dirt on floors, fruit flies, and an overwhelming foul smell. Such directly conflicting observations suggest that sanitation standards may vary significantly by unit, room, wing, or over time, and that some families experienced acute lapses in infection control and basic housekeeping.
Dining and meals: Dining reports are split. Numerous reviewers praise fresh, hot meals and a pleasant dining room. In contrast, other families report reheated or pre-made foods, cold cuts, lukewarm meals, and generally unappealing food service. Food quality appears to be another area of high variability, which may tie back to staffing, kitchen management, or shifts in operations reported by different reviewers.
Therapy and rehabilitation: One of the strongest positive and consistent themes is the quality of therapy and rehab services for many residents. Multiple reviews single out rehabilitation and therapy staff as excellent, attributing quick recoveries and life-changing improvements to their work. Conversely, there are reports of inadequate therapy after surgery in specific cases, with poor outcomes when care was perceived as insufficient. This again indicates that while the therapy department is a strength for many residents, experiences are not uniformly positive.
Safety, legal, and financial allegations: Several reviewers allege serious institutional problems beyond day-to-day care, including pressure to apply for Medicaid, financial exploitation, and accusations that the facility changes names to avoid negative reviews. There are also mentions of legal action, calls to shut the facility down, and long-term decline. Such allegations are severe and, if accurate, point to systemic management and compliance issues; they are balanced in the dataset by many families who explicitly recommend the facility and describe positive financial or admission interactions. The presence of such strong accusations alongside glowing endorsements underscores the overall inconsistency.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is stark inconsistency of resident experience. Many families report exemplary, compassionate care, excellent therapy, and clean, welcoming facilities; other families report neglect, unsanitary conditions, poor medical oversight, and unresponsiveness. Common cross-cutting concerns that appear repeatedly are understaffing, poor communication/phone responsiveness, and variability in cleanliness and meal quality. Several reviewers explicitly advise that families must personally monitor medications, meals, tests, and cleanliness, or consider alternative care. Strong negative reports also reference serious safety issues and alleged institutional wrongdoing.
Conclusion: The aggregated reviews portray Hermitage as a facility with real strengths — notably compassionate staff members, strong rehab services, and instances of clean, pleasant environments — but also with significant and recurring weaknesses, particularly around staffing, sanitation, communication, and at least a subset of serious clinical and administrative failures. The variability means that prospective residents and families could have very different experiences. Based on these reviews alone, families should be aware of both the positive experiences and the serious negative allegations, ask detailed operational and oversight questions, visit multiple times and at different hours, and verify regulatory inspection records and complaint histories before making placement decisions. Many reviewers explicitly recommend close monitoring and involvement in the resident's care while admitted.
