Overall sentiment: Reviews for Markley Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center are highly polarized. A substantial number of reviewers report exceptional, compassionate, and effective care—especially in the rehabilitation (PT/OT/speech) program—while a significant minority describe serious lapses in basic nursing care, hygiene, safety, and management responsiveness. This creates a mixed overall picture: one where strong clinical rehabilitation services and many dedicated individual caregivers coexist with concerning reports of neglect, understaffing, inconsistencies across shifts/units, and administrative failures.
Care quality and rehabilitation: The facility receives repeated, strong praise for its rehabilitation services. Many reviewers singled out physical and occupational therapy staff (Nat, Kathryn, Kailyn, Scott, Maribel, Alex, Tara and others) and described measurable functional and cognitive improvements, good therapy equipment, and a motivating therapy gym. Several families report discharge with improved independence and gratitude for personalized therapy plans. However, other reviews describe limited or inconsistent therapy (reports of only 20 minutes/day or therapy delivered in hallways) suggesting variable implementation. Overall, rehab appears to be a core strength but not uniformly delivered to every resident.
Staff, individual caregivers, and leadership: A dominant theme among positive reviews is the presence of committed, kind, and skilled individual staff: CNAs, RNs, weekend supervisors, admissions staff and named caregivers (frequently cited: Leueen/Leueen Boham as DON, ADON Michelle, Jessica, Deni, Tee, Sidney, Crystal, Shamyra, Tara, JJ and many others). Many families emphasize personalized attention, empathetic communication, and staff who 'go above and beyond.' Leadership (particularly the DON and ADON in multiple accounts) is praised for visible involvement, transparent communication, and clinical competence. Conversely, a sizeable number of reviews accuse some staff of inattentiveness—texting, sleeping at stations, rolling eyes, ignoring call bells—and describe attitudes that felt dismissive. This contrast suggests variability by shift, unit, or time period: while many caregivers earn high praise, others are reported as neglectful.
Facility, cleanliness and maintenance: Many reviewers describe the building as clean, newly renovated in parts, well-maintained, and odor-free, noting a welcoming lobby, landscaped grounds, and a modern therapy gym. The dining area and general upkeep receive praise often. Yet several reports give the opposite impression: dirty laundry in hallways, rooms that were dated or had odor issues, COVID-unit concerns, and filth on patients. These opposing accounts indicate inconsistent environmental practices or improvements occurring over time with remnant issues on certain units or during particular shifts.
Dining and nutrition: Meal quality remarks are mixed. Numerous reviewers appreciated delicious and timely meals, special dietary accommodations, and pleasant dining spaces. Conversely, there are multiple complaints about horrendous, non-fresh food, menus not honored, an overreliance on canned items, lack of vegetarian options, and instances of food being served inappropriately (including feeding residents who could not swallow). This split suggests variability in dietary execution and occasional lapses in safety and variety.
Activities, social services, and amenities: Social programming and spiritual care are frequently listed as positives—plentiful activities, nightly snacks, and supportive social services are highlighted. Amenities such as an on-site hair salon, transportation, and upcoming services (hemodialysis unit) also add value. Families repeatedly describe a family-like atmosphere and good opportunities for engagement.
Management, communication, and responsiveness: Many families praise admissions, business office staff, and certain administrators for clear communication and fast problem resolution. Nevertheless, significant criticism exists around unresponsive management, ringing phone lines with no answer, empty apologies/unstable follow-through, and defensive or belligerent administrative behavior in some incidents. Several reviewers explicitly state they received no response to complaints and that promises were not kept. These patterns point to inconsistency in administrative accountability and follow-through.
Safety, supplies, and serious allegations: The reviews contain serious allegations that cannot be ignored: reports of assault by a male aide (with claimed administrative inaction), residents left in soiled garments for hours, feeding practices leading to aspiration risk, leg infections, and other neglect-related outcomes that allegedly led to hospitalization or worsened conditions. There are also reports of missing supplies (depends, wipes), inconsistent medication oversight, and privacy/discharge miscues. Some reviewers link declines in care to ownership/management change and staffing cuts. While many positive reviews emphasize safety and skilled nursing, these safety-related allegations are recurring and significant, indicating areas that require investigation and remedial action.
Patterns and likely explanations: The distribution of reviews suggests the facility contains many highly committed staff and quality clinical programs, but outcomes are inconsistent, potentially tied to staffing levels, shift coverage, specific units, or transitional management changes. Named individuals and supervisory leaders consistently praised point to strong pockets of leadership and practice; conversely, recurring complaints about understaffing, slow bells, and laundry/cleanliness problems suggest systemic operational strains. Several reviewers directly attribute lower care quality to recent ownership or budgetary decisions, though this is anecdotal.
Recommendations and takeaways: For families considering Markley, the facility shows strong potential—especially for short-term rehab and therapy—with many testimonials of high-quality, compassionate care and meaningful functional gains. However, prospective residents and families should perform targeted due diligence: ask about staffing ratios on the relevant unit and shift, request recent inspection records and incident follow-ups, verify dietary accommodations, and meet the DON/ADON and therapy team. If placing a loved one, maintain active family involvement and frequent checks during the early days to confirm consistent standards of hygiene, call response, and medication/feeding safety. For facility leadership: addressing variability—through staffing stabilization, consistent supervisory rounds, responsive complaint resolution, and targeted training around hygiene and feeding protocols—would reduce the most serious negative patterns noted across reviews.
Bottom line: Markley Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center receives many high-quality endorsements—particularly for rehab, several standout caregivers, and parts of leadership—yet a nontrivial number of reviews report alarming neglect, safety issues, and operational inconsistency. Decisions should weigh the facility’s demonstrated strengths in therapy and individual caregivers against the documented variability and serious concerns raised by several families. If choosing Markley, obtain concrete, unit-specific assurances and monitor care closely after admission.
