The reviews for Kingston Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing reveal a deeply mixed picture with strong polarization between very positive and very negative experiences. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise caring, compassionate, and communicative staff — including CNAs, nurses, and management — and cite specific strengths such as efficient clinical supervisors, a pleasant front-desk representative named Donna, improved front-lobby renovations, good accommodations, assistance with transportation and appointments, stimulating activities, and restaurant-grade meals in some reports. A number of families explicitly recommend the facility and express gratitude for respectful end-of-life care and attentive staff involvement.
Conversely, an extensive set of serious and recurring negative themes appears throughout other reviews. These include allegations of neglect (ignored call bells, unmet basic needs), major clinical lapses (bedsores, suspected or confirmed UTIs and pneumonia, dehydration, extreme weight loss), and delayed or missed medical care that reviewers tie to hospital transfers, ICU admissions, and even deaths. Specific clinical process failures are alleged: medication delays and omissions, failure to flush PICC lines as ordered, undocumented falls, and premature removal of a tracheostomy tube. Several reviewers explicitly reported filing or attempting to file complaints with the Department of Health and mention violations or fear of reprisal and regulatory action.
Safety, security, and property issues are another cluster of complaints. Multiple families reported theft or damage to residents’ personal items — dentures, hearing aids, pocketbooks, chargers — and described unhelpful responses from administration. Privacy breaches and inappropriate staff behavior (gossiping about residents, taking pictures without permission, using photos of deceased residents) were raised as breaches of dignity and confidentiality. These incidents feed into an overall sense by some reviewers that the facility does not adequately protect residents’ belongings or privacy.
Facility condition and cleanliness are a further source of divergence. Several reviewers describe the building as outdated, dark, in disrepair, with strong urine or other unpleasant odors, dirty or cluttered rooms, and inadequate housekeeping (reports of uncleaned patients). Conversely, other reviews describe the environment as clean, well-kept, and beautifully maintained after recent changes. Staffing levels and the consistency of care appear to be a core driver of this variability: accounts of short staffing, overworked employees, and an RN sleeping in a chair are juxtaposed with reports of a small, attentive staff that provides individualized care.
Dining and daily living services show the same split: some families report missed meals, no liquids provided, and poor-quality food causing family members not to eat, while others praise the food as very good. Rehabilitation services are described as inadequate by some reviewers but adequate by others who felt therapy was sufficient. Administrative communication also varies widely — several reviews commend responsive, kind, and helpful management, whereas others call administration unhelpful and nonresponsive to complaints.
Taken together, the reviews paint a facility with inconsistent quality of care and experience. The most concerning patterns are repeated allegations of neglect and clinical mismanagement that have serious medical consequences for residents; these merit urgent attention and verification by oversight bodies and families. At the same time, multiple positive accounts suggest that there are pockets of strong practice, caring staff, and recent management-led improvements which may be changing conditions for some residents. For someone evaluating Kingston Center, the key takeaways are: (1) expect high variability in resident experience, (2) ask specific questions about staffing levels, clinical protocols (medication administration, wound care, infection prevention), and security of personal property, (3) confirm whether recent management changes and renovations have addressed previously reported issues, and (4) consider close monitoring and frequent communication with staff if placing a loved one there. Reviews indicate genuine strengths but also serious and recurring risks that should not be overlooked.
