Overall impression: Reviews of Roosevelt Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center are highly polarized. A substantial portion of families and residents report excellent care — compassionate, professional staff, strong therapy services, a clean renovated environment, and successful short‑term rehab outcomes. Simultaneously, a significant and recurring subgroup of reviews documents serious care failures: alleged neglect, infection risk, pests, theft, and administrative breakdowns. The large volume of both glowing and alarmingly negative accounts suggests wide variability in experience that depends heavily on floor, shift, individual staff members, and possibly time periods or changes in management.
Care quality and clinical issues: Many reviewers praise skilled clinical care in specific areas: an apparently robust cardiac program (telemetry monitoring, ACLS‑certified staff, pacemaker management), and a therapy department that frequently achieves strong functional gains (physical, occupational, speech therapy). These positive reports describe residents regaining independence and returning home. Conversely, multiple reports describe grave clinical lapses — residents left in urine/feces, delayed or omitted medications, untreated wounds and pressure injuries, dehydration, malnutrition/weight loss, and infections including UTIs, MRSA, fungal infections, and alleged sepsis. There are multiple accounts of bedsores, wound care not performed, and cases where family perceived medical deterioration requiring emergency transfer. These serious allegations (including reports of deaths) are repeatedly mentioned and indicate potential systemic clinical and monitoring failures in some cases.
Staffing, staff behavior, and variability: Staff behavior and competence are the most frequently contradictory themes. Numerous reviews call out specific nurses, CNAs, therapists, life‑enrichment staff, maintenance, and admissions people by name with high praise — describing them as compassionate, proactive, and family‑oriented. Life enrichment and admissions teams are repeatedly praised for warmth and coordination. However, equally frequent are reports of rude, unprofessional, or absent staff; slow responses to call bells; aides refusing basic assistance; and supervisory unavailability, especially on weekends or nights. This inconsistency implies wide variability between shifts/floors and certain staff members who deliver high‑quality care while others provide substandard service.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Therapy emerges as a key strength for many residents: reviewers highlight an excellent PT gym, effective therapists, and a therapy program that helped patients return to baseline function. Several reviewers explicitly state they would return for rehab. Nevertheless, a consistent counter‑theme exists: families reporting promised therapy never delivered, limited or absent occupational/PT services, or that therapy was inadequate. This again underscores inconsistent implementation — for some patients therapy is exemplary; for others it is minimal or missing.
Facility condition and infection/pest control: Multiple reviewers describe a renovated, bright, and clean facility with tasteful patient rooms and good common spaces. Housekeeping and maintenance are praised in many reports for prompt resolutions. Yet, a notable subset of reviews details serious environmental problems: persistent odors, stained or odor‑retaining carpets, dead roaches under beds, visible roaches/mice, clogged toilets, and malfunctioning elevators or beds. These sanitation and maintenance issues are sometimes juxtaposed with reports of responsive maintenance staff, indicating uneven facility management or localized problems on certain units.
Dining and activities: Life enrichment and activities are frequently rated highly — bingo, parties, singing and dancing, and social programming were singled out as making residents happy. Food opinions are mixed: many families compliment the dining experience and quality meals, while others complain about cold or low‑quality food lacking adequate nutrition or protein. Dining satisfaction appears variable across time and possibly by unit.
Administration, communication, and billing: Communication and administration receive mixed feedback. Several reviews praise administrators, DONs, social workers and specific liaisons for proactive communication, problem resolution, and compassionate engagement. However, many negative reports document unresponsive administration, lost or delayed belongings, slow discharge paperwork, billing disputes, and poor follow‑through. More extreme allegations include misrepresentation of medical issues, intentional retention of residents for financial benefits, and requests for investigations or regulatory action. While some families report management turnaround and improvement under named administrators, other reviewers describe entrenched administrative failures.
Safety, legal and ethical concerns: A worrying cluster of reviews alleges critical safety lapses: repeated falls, lack of fall prevention measures (no rails, no mats), incorrect ambulance destination, delayed transfers for critical lab values, and in a few reports, alleged theft of personal items and Social Security funds. There are also multiple accounts of restricted visitation and poor transparency around medical status. These allegations — including reports of deaths or severe deterioration — are serious and recur across independent reviews. They point to potential regulatory and oversight concerns that warrant careful attention during any placement decision.
Patterns and takeaways: The pattern across reviews is one of stark inconsistency. When the center functions well, families report exemplary therapy, attentive nursing, engaged activities, clean spaces, and excellent front‑desk/service staff. When it fails, failures are profound: neglect, infection, pests, theft, and administrative breakdown. These mixed results suggest variability by unit, staff roster, or timing — and emphasize that family oversight, asking about current staffing levels, infection control/pest management, named staffing assignments, and documented care plans are critical when considering admission.
In conclusion, Roosevelt Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center elicits both high praise and severe criticism. Prospective residents and their families should weigh the demonstrated strengths — particularly in cardiac care and rehab/therapy — against repeated reports of serious care and safety lapses. Due diligence prior to placement is essential: request recent staffing ratios, infection/pest control records, wound‑care protocols, examples of therapy schedules, names of assigned nurses/CNAs, and readmitted family references for the specific floor or unit under consideration. The overall impression is that the facility can provide excellent, recovery‑oriented care in many cases, but there is a non‑trivial risk of inconsistent care quality that families should proactively address.
