Overall impression: Reviews of Woodhaven Care Center are strongly mixed but trend toward serious concerns. Multiple reviewers praise the rehabilitation/therapy program and some individual staff members, especially physical therapists and certain nurses, citing excellent outcomes, attentive therapy, virtual visit options, and meaningful family support during end-of-life care. However, a significant and repeating set of negative reports — including delays in care, medication mishandling, safety incidents, and rude or dismissive staff — create a pattern that suggests inconsistent care quality and operational problems that may pose real risk to vulnerable residents.
Care quality and clinical safety: The reviews show a clear divide between therapy services (frequently described as exemplary) and basic nursing care (frequently described as inadequate). Rehabilitation/physical therapy is repeatedly called "impeccable" or "excellent," with outsourced therapy teams and makeover-driven improvements producing strong functional outcomes. In contrast, many reviewers report long waits for basic nursing assistance (call button response times reported between about 27 and 50 minutes), delayed or missed breathing treatments, oxygen not being turned on, medication timing issues, and alleged medication mishandling (including pills removed/cut or medications administered incorrectly). Several reviewers described incidents that resulted in harm or near-harm: skin tears and scratches during turning, blood in a diaper, incontinent episodes left unaddressed, and a patient reportedly forced to crawl to the bathroom. These incidents, combined with reports of a medication bottle left in a room and alleged HIPAA/privacy violations, raise substantial safety and procedure concerns.
Staffing, behavior, and culture: Understaffing and staff overload are recurring themes and are often presented as root causes of many problems. Reviewers consistently describe overworked nurses and aides, long hold times, and basic needs not being met. Alongside reports of caring, professional, and compassionate staff are many accounts of rude, demeaning, or unprofessional behavior: staff laughing at residents, yelling, gossiping, and showing negative attitudes. These behavioral reports are serious when combined with accounts of neglect. Some reviewers praise individual managers or administrative staff and report positive experiences with admissions and private rooms; others describe administration as dismissive and name a specific administrator (Jen Firestone) as arrogant and rule-ignoring. This inconsistency suggests uneven leadership or differences by shift/unit.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Descriptions of the facility itself are mixed. Several reviewers call the building very clean and the environment welcoming; cleaning staff are described as kind. Conversely, multiple reports indicate unpleasant odors (urine and feces), dirty rooms, and general lack of cleanliness in some cases. Physical safety issues are singled out: hard beds, missing side rails, and sparse furnishings are noted as causing discomfort or risk. Noise problems (noisy roommates, sleep disruption) and intermittent outages (TV not working with no updates) were also reported.
Dining and nutrition: Food receives frequent negative feedback. Multiple reviewers described the meals as "horrendous," overly pork/ham-centric, and failing to honor prescribed diets (notably low-sodium diets). A few reviewers contradicted this, saying their family member enjoyed the food; however, the number and specificity of dietary complaints — and the importance of nutrition to recovery — make this a common and significant concern.
Communication and administration: Communication quality is inconsistent. Some families report excellent, timely communication and professional administrative engagement; others experienced poor or dismissive responses, long phone hold times (example: 27-minute hold), a social worker who was unhelpful, and lack of follow-up on complaints. Reports referencing a CMS investigation or rating for possible abuse/neglect and explicit HIPAA concerns amplify the seriousness of the communication/oversight problems.
Patterns and risk assessment: The most frequently recurring themes are understaffing, delayed responses to call lights, medication and treatment timing errors, and inconsistent staff professionalism. These are not isolated complaints but appear across many reviews, indicating systemic issues rather than single-incident dissatisfaction. At the same time, therapy outcomes and some individual caregivers are repeatedly praised, suggesting strengths that may be concentrated in specific departments or shifts. The mix of glowing therapy feedback and repeated nursing/maintenance complaints points to uneven resource allocation or management focus.
Bottom line for families and referrals: Prospective residents and family members should be cautious and perform targeted due diligence. If rehabilitation outcomes are the primary goal, the facility’s therapy department appears strong. If a resident requires consistent, attentive nursing care (timely medication administration, frequent turning, continence assistance, respiratory treatments), the risk of delayed or missed care is meaningful based on these reviews. Recommended actions before placement include: visiting at multiple times/shifts to observe staffing and responsiveness; asking for recent staffing ratios and incident reports; confirming medication administration protocols and tracking; inspecting meal plans and accommodations for special diets; and checking recent CMS reports and complaint history. Given the number and seriousness of negative reports relating to safety and neglect, families should weigh the facility’s therapy strengths against potential nursing and safety liabilities.
