Overall impression: The reviews for Manatawny Manor (Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing) are highly mixed, ranging from glowing accounts of lifesaving, coordinated care to disturbing reports of neglect, severe understaffing, hygiene failures, and even alleged financial exploitation. Several families describe exceptional, compassionate staff who personally made a measurable difference—coordinating with hospitals, enrolling veterans in benefits, running successful discharge plans, and in at least one case being credited with saving a resident's life. At the same time, recurring systemic problems appear across many independent reports: understaffing, delayed responses to calls for help, missed medications, cleanliness failures, and inconsistent management response. The balance of praise and serious criticism suggests a facility with pockets of strong clinical and interpersonal performance undermined by operational and administrative weaknesses that create safety and quality risks for residents.
Care quality and safety: The most frequently cited negative theme is understaffing and its downstream safety impacts. Multiple reviews report extended waits for help (20–90+ minutes), residents crying out for hours, and instances where no aide was present for 48–76 hours. Several accounts link these staffing failures to clinical harm: missed medications (including evening meds), resulting ER visits, anemia requiring transfusion, and concerns about untreated infections or bedsores. There are also reports of staff pressuring families to sign AMA forms tied to Medicare coverage and instances where nurses or supervisors handled discharge/transportation in ways families found coercive. Conversely, other reviewers describe timely, professional nursing care and prompt emergency responses—showing a wide variability in safety and clinical reliability across shifts or units. The presence of named nurses and staff who receive consistent praise indicates pockets of very competent care even while systemic reliability remains a major concern.
Staff and management: Reviews frequently distinguish between “staff” and “management.” Direct-care staff—nurses, aides, therapy personnel and volunteers—are often described as kind, patient, and committed, with multiple testimonials naming specific nurses (e.g., Nurse Nicole, Nurse Shakera) and describing coordinated care and responsiveness. However, management and administration receive more mixed-to-negative comments: some families credit the executive director or social worker with resolving issues and communicating well, while many others report unresponsiveness, billing errors, deception, and a lack of accountability. Several reviewers describe improvement after complaints, suggesting management can be effective when engaged, but numerous other reviewers felt ignored or that corrective action was insufficient. There are also serious allegations regarding financial exploitation and POA manipulation, including a named individual and claims of over $2 million stolen; while these are reviewer-reported allegations rather than adjudicated findings, they contribute to a perception among some families of serious ethical and legal concerns tied to administration or outside actors.
Facilities, housekeeping, and maintenance: Facility impressions are mixed. Many reviewers report clean, attractive public areas, well-kept patient rooms, and a welcoming lobby; some units and rooms are praised as feeling home-like. Yet there are repeated reports of specific and alarming housekeeping failures: feces on doors and floors, stained toilets not cleaned for months, urine odors, clutter, and old dirty furniture. Initial admissions sometimes included unprepared rooms, damaged furniture, and spills on walls. Maintenance reportedly addressed some complaints when raised, but inconsistency is a recurring complaint. This split suggests variable housekeeping standards between shifts or wings, and an operational gap in sustained cleanliness and maintenance.
Dining and nutrition: Dining repeatedly appears as a significant pain point. Common criticisms include repetitive menus (heavy on chicken/turkey), cold meals, small portions, stale bread, lack of snacks, and dining room cleanliness issues. Some families said they had to fetch food for residents. Other reviewers, however, note meals tailored to preferences and positive food experiences—again highlighting inconsistent delivery of services. Where diet and meal quality are poor, families link this to declining resident satisfaction and nutrition concerns.
Activities, therapy, and social environment: Positive reviews consistently highlight active programming (bingo, entertainers, movie nights), volunteer-led activities, and opportunities for social connection. Several families emphasize that residents enjoyed activities, made friends, and experienced successful therapy and rehabilitation leading to safe discharges. The presence of therapy services, volunteers, and social workers are cited as strong points when present and active.
Administration, billing, and financial issues: Beyond care and cleanliness, administration and billing raise significant concerns. Reviewers report incorrect billing, surprise charges for TV/cable/phone, and other financial errors. More serious are the allegations of POA manipulation and alleged large-scale financial theft involving named parties—claims that dramatically escalate the risk profile for families relying on facility stewardship. Several reviews state that new ownership preceded declines in care and cleanliness, and others describe cost-cutting measures (e.g., converting linens into rags) that affected perceived safety and dignity.
Patterns and variability: The dominant theme across reviews is variability. Multiple accounts show the facility can provide excellent, compassionate, clinically competent care, communicate well, and support successful discharges and benefits enrollment. Simultaneously, many reviews report systemic issues—chronic understaffing, missed meds, hygiene failures, inadequate management response, and billing/ethical problems—that create real safety and quality concerns. Reports of improvement following complaints indicate some capacity for remediation, but the recurrence of problems and the spread of serious allegations suggest unresolved operational weaknesses.
Recommendation context: For prospective families, the reviews suggest caution and due diligence. Positive signals include named, reputable staff members, available therapy and activities, and successful programs for veterans and post-acute transitions. Key red flags to investigate further in person or with regulators include staffing ratios, medication administration processes, cleanliness and infection control audits, financial safeguards around POA and billing, and consistent management responsiveness. Visiting during different shifts, asking for staffing ratios, reviewing recent inspection or complaint records, and speaking directly with social work and nursing leadership will help assess whether the facility’s strong points outweigh the recurring and sometimes severe concerns documented by multiple reviewers.
