The reviews for Majestic Oaks Rehabilitation and Nursing Center are highly mixed, showing a polarized picture where families and residents often experience both notable strengths and significant, sometimes severe weaknesses. A recurring positive theme centers on direct-care staff and therapy services: many reviews praise caring, compassionate nurses and aides, and the Therapy Department (physical and occupational therapy) receives frequent high marks for skill and effectiveness. The activities department also stands out as a strength—families regularly note an engaged activities coordinator, plentiful events (musicians, parties, social activities), and a community atmosphere that helps residents stay active and socially connected. Several named staff members and liaisons receive specific gratitude for communication, individualized attention, and advocacy, which contributes to a family-like environment reported by numerous reviewers.
However, the positive experiences sit alongside substantial reports of care failures and safety concerns. Understaffing and high turnover are among the most consistent negative themes; reviewers describe long wait times for assistance, delayed bathroom help, and insufficient numbers of aides per floor. There are multiple, serious allegations of neglect: urine odor, urine-soaked clothing, bedsores, unattended catheters, missed medications, delays in emergency response, missed medical testing, and resulting hospitalizations (including for UTIs and severe infections). Several reviews cite infection spread between roommates and poor infection-control practices, such as improper hand-washing. These issues are particularly pronounced on memory care and some nursing floors, where families report lack of supervision, missing supplies (toilet paper, clean clothes), and compromised hygiene. A subset of reviewers view these lapses as systemic and have filed regulatory complaints or called for state intervention.
Food and dining generate recurring dissatisfaction: many reviewers describe meals as cold, unappetizing, or “worse than dog food,” though others note improvements over time and praise accommodating dining staff who welcome families and handle large groups. Dining-room logistics also draw complaints—blocked elevators during meal service, crowding, and limited dining options—while some families report the dining staff are warm and accommodating. Facility condition is similarly mixed: several reviews mention a dated or poorly designed building with hazards (slow or hazardous elevators, open electrical panels) and inadequate parking, while others describe clean, nicely appointed areas, renovated rooms, a pleasant lobby, and accessible gardens.
Management, communication, and organizational stability emerge as another dividing theme. Some families commend responsive management, helpful admissions staff, clear discharge communication, and monthly resident meetings that invite family input. Conversely, many reviews criticize frequent leadership changes, inadequate administrative availability, rude or unqualified administrators, and inconsistent communication. Reports of inadequate oversight—where aides are not supervised properly, or where executive directors rotate frequently—compound concerns about accountability. There are also allegations of discriminatory treatment of Medicaid residents and instances of staff arguing with families, which damage trust and transparency.
Safety, security, and trust issues appear repeatedly: allegations of theft and missing personal items, medication and monitoring errors, and claims that no doctors have been regularly present at the facility for periods of time are particularly alarming to families. Noise from alarms, shift-change lapses, and incidents such as roommate conflicts or lack of privacy (no curtain) further reduce the sense of safety for some residents. Conversely, many families explicitly state that their loved ones received excellent, attentive care and that staff took pride in their work—demonstrating that quality may depend heavily on unit, shift, or individual caregivers.
Taken together, the reviews paint a facility with genuine strengths—especially in therapy services, activities, and many compassionate caregivers—but also with recurring operational and safety problems tied to understaffing, management instability, and inconsistent standards of care. For prospective residents and families, the pattern suggests that Majestic Oaks may be a good option for short-term rehabilitation where therapy is the primary goal and where one can work closely with the therapy and activities teams. For long-term placement—particularly for residents with dementia or high nursing needs—families should exercise heightened caution: assess staffing levels on the unit of interest, observe hygiene and infection-control practices, ask about leadership stability and on-site medical coverage, verify reporting and responsiveness procedures, and monitor for any history of regulatory complaints. If you do choose Majestic Oaks, frequent family involvement, clear communication with named staff members, and careful monitoring during the first weeks can help identify whether the particular unit and current staffing provide safe, consistent care.
