The reviews for Peters Township Post Acute are strongly polarized and reveal a facility with notable strengths but also serious, recurring concerns. Many families report excellent clinical therapy services — PT and OT are repeatedly praised as “top-notch” and instrumental in recovery. Numerous reviewers describe kind, dedicated caregivers and nurses who demonstrate compassion, attentiveness, and pride in their work. Several accounts describe a clean, bright facility with pleasant indoor/outdoor social areas, timely meals, helpful administrative assistance (including VA and Medicaid support), and positive experiences around intake, discharge, and family engagement. In these positive reports, staff teamwork, prompt communication, and individualized touches such as birthday treats and regular video chats are highlighted, and several families say the facility exceeded expectations and would recommend it.
However, an equally large and concerning set of reviews points to persistent operational problems that have directly impacted resident safety and family trust. Understaffing and high staff turnover are recurring themes — reviewers describe long wait times for toileting and medication, ignored call bells, and situations where only one or two aides are available for many residents. These staffing gaps are linked to neglectful outcomes in multiple reports: residents left unattended while calling for help, beds soaked and not changed, patients found in distressing positions, and even serious medical sequelae leading to hospitalization, ICU stays, or transfer to hospice. Several families allege that the facility’s staffing model relies on agency personnel and that accountability is lacking when adverse events occur.
Cleanliness and environment produce inconsistent feedback. While many reviewers praise a very clean, well-kept upper level and common spaces, others report dirty rooms and floors, marked walls, odors of urine in halls, pest problems (ants and gnats), and water leakage with wet ceiling tiles. Some comments indicate that units differ markedly — renovated upper floors with a nice nurse station and smaller problem areas on lower levels — suggesting variability in maintenance and infection-control practices across the facility. Infection concerns appear in multiple reviews: exposure to RSV due to ill staff, reports of poor infection control (including staff smoking on property), and instances where rooms were not properly sterilized after a resident’s discharge.
Staff behavior and professionalism are another major axis of variability. Many reviews commend specific nurses and CNAs by name for outstanding care and responsiveness. At the same time, numerous reports describe rude, loud, or unprofessional staff; aides or nurses shouting at patients; staff whispering about residents; and social workers or administrative staff who are unresponsive or even antagonistic. These interpersonal issues are compounded by reports of financial motivations influencing care decisions — high out-of-pocket costs, discharge denials, premature discharges, billing disputes, lost personal items, and pending refunds that prompted BBB or Attorney General complaints in a few cases.
Clinical practices and safety management are areas of serious concern in some accounts. Families describe medication delays or withholding (including pain medications), abrupt changes to psychiatric medications (e.g., stopping a mood stabilizer), and failures to escalate deteriorations in condition. A few reviewers detailed traumatic experiences with transport and discharge: missed medical appointments due to transport delays, extra charges for transport, and long periods where no follow-up or pick-up occurred. Conversely, other reviewers reported seamless coordination of doctor visits and informed medication management. This inconsistency points to variability in clinical oversight and discharge planning depending on staff and timing.
Activities, dining, and amenities receive mixed commentary. Some reviewers note active programming, musical guests, family lunch visits, and overall resident engagement — residents kept active and families encouraged to participate. Food quality is mixed: meals are delivered on time for some but criticized as unappetizing or not hot enough by others. Several reviews mention amenity issues such as no bedside TV or inconsistent TV availability. Administrative and customer-service experiences are similarly split: some families praise helpful receptionists and admission directors; others report horrible phone etiquette and poor initial impressions.
Overall sentiment is sharply divided: many families express gratitude and high satisfaction — especially for therapy, compassionate individual caregivers, and clean, well-managed units — while a significant number issue strong warnings against the facility, citing neglect, safety incidents, poor oversight, and inconsistent management. Key patterns to note are the variability by unit/shift (better care on some floors or times), frequent staffing shortages linked to delays and neglect, repeated communication and discharge-planning failures, and environmental lapses in some areas. Prospective families should be aware of both the facility’s strong therapy services and the documented inconsistencies in basic nursing care and operational reliability. When evaluating Peters Township Post Acute, it is advisable to ask specific, current questions about staffing ratios on the intended unit and shift, infection-control protocols, oversight of agency staff, transport and discharge procedures, and how the facility addresses complaints and adverse events. Touring in person and speaking directly with therapists, nursing leadership, and families of current residents on the unit in question may help reveal whether the aspects of care that matter most to you are stable and reliably provided.
