Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized, revealing a facility with pockets of strong, compassionate care but frequent, serious operational and safety problems. Multiple reviewers praise individual caregiving staff, therapy teams, and activities; others report neglect, safety lapses, and inadequate management. The result is an inconsistent experience where the quality of care appears to depend heavily on which staff are on duty and what unit or program the resident is in.
Care quality and clinical services: Several short-term rehabilitation reviews describe attentive nursing, engaged PT and OT, and visible rehabilitation progress (improvements in walking, sit-to-stand transfers, and toileting). These accounts describe kind CNAs and staff who listen to concerns, and families noting tangible recovery. In direct contrast, numerous long-term or personal-care accounts describe infrequent hygiene (missed showers), inadequate physical care, delayed responses to call lights, and outright neglect (residents left soaking wet for hours). There are multiple reports connecting poor monitoring to severe medical outcomes — infections from bites, sepsis context, a reported coma outcome, and at least one fall caused by an unlocked wheelchair. These safety and medical incidents are significant red flags and are cited repeatedly by reviewers as evidence of systemic problems.
Staffing, behavior, and communication: A dominant theme is understaffing and inconsistent staffing levels. One reviewer explicitly reported only two aides for 53 residents, and others noted times when no CNA was on the floor. Understaffing is linked in reviews to long response times, neglected hygiene needs, and residents being left in unsafe or unsanitary conditions. While many reviewers single out compassionate employees and name staff who provided excellent care (examples include Amy, Sandy, Megan, Denise, Annette, Brandon, Sharon, Jen, and social services staff Delphie), these positive mentions coexist with complaints about rude or unqualified staff, phone lines that go unanswered or get hung up on, and uneven staffing coverage. Several reviews also accused management of failing to act appropriately in crisis situations, including refusing to cover hospital bills after an overdose, issuing abrupt eviction or one-month notices, and shutting down personal care services.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety environment: Numerous reviewers describe the physical facility as dirty and unkempt, noting pests such as flies and spiders in resident rooms and common areas. Reports of residents lying in wet beds, being left at the nurse station soaked for over eight hours, or finding no washcloths or towels indicate lapses in daily care routines and infection-control risks. These environmental concerns, combined with the cited safety lapses (unlocked wheelchairs, delayed assistance), create a picture of inconsistent adherence to basic standards of care and safety protocols.
Dining and dietary management: Dining opinions are mixed. Some reviewers said meals looked and smelled wonderful and that food could be enjoyable, while others described cold, unappetizing food and stated that dietary restrictions were not followed. The discrepancy suggests variability in meal preparation, service, or adherence to prescribed diets across shifts or units.
Activities, therapy, and quality-of-life programming: Activities and therapy receive mostly positive comments. Several reviewers appreciated robust programming, entertainment, and an active therapy department that contributed to residents’ physical improvements and emotional wellbeing. Transportation staff (a bus driver) and the activities department were singled out positively. However, at least one reviewer noted that therapy was good but limited by facility constraints, again reflecting variability in available resources depending on unit or circumstance.
Management, policy, and systemic concerns: Management is a focal point of both praise and criticism. Positive reviews mention helpful management and new leadership that appears to be improving operations. Negative reports allege severe managerial failures: refusal to take financial responsibility after an overdose-related hospitalization, abrupt eviction notices and the shutdown of personal care services, and overall lack of accountability. These management-related allegations exacerbate family concerns and contribute to distrust among residents and their loved ones.
Patterns and overall assessment: The reviews reveal two clear patterns. First, when adequate staffing and engaged clinical/therapy teams are present, residents can receive good, even excellent, care — with measurable rehabilitation gains and supportive social services. Second, persistent understaffing, inconsistent supervision, and operational lapses lead to serious adverse experiences for residents, including neglect, infections, safety incidents, and family distress. The coexistence of very positive and very negative experiences suggests high variability in care quality across shifts, units, and time periods.
Recommendations based on review themes: Prospective residents and families should (1) verify staffing levels and staff-to-resident ratios for the specific unit they are considering, (2) ask about supervision protocols, infection control, and safety checks (including wheelchair locking policies and fall-prevention measures), (3) request recent inspection reports and incident histories, and (4) meet with social services and therapy staff to confirm rehabilitation plans and dietary management processes. Families already using the facility should maintain regular communication, document concerns immediately, and escalate to management or external oversight if urgent safety or neglect issues arise.
In summary, Kadima at Campbelltown shows evidence of competent, caring staff and effective therapy for some residents, but also displays recurring systemic issues — understaffing, communication failures, cleanliness and pest problems, dietary lapses, and serious safety and management incidents — that have led to significant harm in some reported cases. The facility appears to deliver markedly different experiences depending on staffing, unit, and management responsiveness; this variability is the central takeaway from these reviews.
