Overall sentiment for Phoenix Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing is highly polarized and inconsistent. A notable subset of reviews describe genuinely excellent care: attentive and compassionate nursing staff, skilled physical and occupational therapists, engaged CNAs and activities staff, and administrators and directors of nursing (several reviewers name Tracey, Michelle, and Josh positively) who are described as helpful and deeply concerned for residents. Those positive reports also cite pleasant aspects of the facility such as renovated rooms and a new lobby in parts of the building, attractive grounds, a dog-friendly visitation policy, and convenient proximity to hospitals and family homes. Several families explicitly recommend the facility based on these positive, personal experiences.
However, an equally large and vocally negative group of reviews raises severe and recurring concerns about cleanliness, safety, staffing levels, food service, and management. Numerous reviewers report filthy conditions: persistent urine odor, mold, dirty kitchens and pantries, food served on plastic utensils and plates, use of rags to clean bowls and bodily fluids, and rare or inadequate housekeeping. These reports extend to claims that some rooms are dilapidated or contain old, beat-up furniture and that the overall atmosphere can be depressing and neglectful. Several reviewers state they intended to report the facility to health authorities or call for it to be shut down.
Staffing and care quality are major themes in the negative reviews. Multiple accounts describe chronic understaffing, especially on weekends and nights ("skeleton crew"), high reliance on agency workers, and staff shortages that lead to slow response times and unmet basic needs (e.g., lack of wipes/pads, delays in assistance, residents waiting for care). Some reviewers allege specific safety incidents: removal of call bells, inadequate response to falls (including a fall with head injury), delayed ambulance response after admission, and at least one allegation of a patient decline and death associated with neglect. These reports point to inconsistencies in supervision and nursing oversight and raise serious safety concerns that some families believe warrant regulatory investigation.
Management and organizational culture appear fractured and variable over time or by unit. Several reviewers complain that management ignored complaints, brushed incidents under the rug, or failed to maintain kitchen and housekeeping services; some note administrators have quit and accuse management of cost-cutting. Conversely, other reviewers praise "new management" and single out specific leaders (again Tracey, and positive comments about changes) for improving care and being attentive. This pattern suggests that care and conditions may differ significantly depending on leadership, unit, or timing of care. Reviewers also cite unprofessional and disrespectful staff behavior in some cases (yelling, swearing, derogatory remarks toward residents and family members), which contributes to concerns about workplace culture and resident dignity.
Food service and housekeeping show mixed reports as well. Some families report good meals and that residents enjoyed the food; others report no meal choices, poor food quality, and scenario-level problems such as the administrator having to prepare meals because kitchen staff were absent. These contradictory reports mirror the overall inconsistency seen across many domains: pockets of competent, caring practice exist alongside serious, systemic failings in other shifts or areas of the facility.
Noise, privacy, and security issues were also mentioned: parking-lot noise and blaring music late at night, staff taking breaks in cars and swearing, small shared rooms raising privacy concerns, and alleged lack of security or supervision. These issues compound the safety and quality-of-life complaints, especially for residents sensitive to sleep disruption or requiring quiet, restful environments.
In summary, the reviews suggest two prevailing realities: (1) families and patients can and do have very positive experiences driven by caring, skilled staff, good therapists, and parts of the campus that have been renovated and are well-maintained; and (2) there are numerous and serious reports of neglectful or unsafe conditions, poor cleanliness, understaffing, unprofessional conduct, and management failings affecting other residents and shifts. The coexistence of high praise and harsh criticism indicates significant variability in performance—likely dependent on staffing levels, time of day/week, specific units, and changes in management. Given the recurrent safety and sanitation complaints, potential visitors, families, and oversight bodies should pay close attention to current staffing patterns, housekeeping and kitchen audits, incident records, and the facility’s response to complaints. For families considering Phoenix Center, recommend frequent visits at different times and shifts, direct discussions with nursing leadership about staffing and incident protocols, and immediate escalation to regulatory authorities if there is any evidence of neglect, unsafe care, or unsanitary conditions.
