Overall sentiment in the reviews for Westerly Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center is strongly mixed, with a large number of very positive accounts about frontline caregivers, the activities program, food, cleanliness, and successful rehabilitation, alongside several serious negative reports alleging neglect, injury, and administrative failures. Many reviewers emphasize exemplary, compassionate care from CNAs, nurses, and therapy teams. These positive comments frequently note well-trained staff, personalized attention, successful PT/OT outcomes, clear care plans, frequent family communication, and staff who go beyond expectations. The activities department receives consistent praise for resident-focused programming, trips, and social events that keep residents engaged. Dining is another commonly-cited strength: reviewers mention tasty meals, good portions, and specific favorites (e.g., chowder and clam cakes). Numerous visitors also describe the facility as clean, recently renovated in areas, with well-kept grounds and pleasant outdoor spaces that contribute to a welcoming environment.
On the clinical side, many families express satisfaction with rehabilitation outcomes and the competence of nursing and therapy staff. Several reviews describe smooth admissions experiences, reassuring transitions from hospital to facility, and attentive maintenance and housekeeping. Employee culture is repeatedly highlighted as a positive, with mention of HR support, sign-on bonuses, continuing education, employee recognition, and opportunities for advancement — all suggesting investment in staff development which reviewers link to better resident care. Communication is often described as strong: families report regular updates, accessible staff, an open-door policy, and a family-like atmosphere that gives them peace of mind.
Balancing those strengths, a subset of reviews raise serious and specific safety and management concerns. There are repeated allegations that some residents experienced neglect, hygiene lapses (including instances of residents found sitting in feces), and preventable injuries (broken teeth, broken nose, bruising). Several accounts describe clinical mismanagement — for example, problems with breathing treatments, aspiration, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and at least one ICU admission and death that reviewers attributed to facility care failures. The dementia unit is singled out in multiple reviews as particularly problematic in some shifts, with claims of unattended residents and unsafe practices described (for instance, staff allegedly placing a fallen resident back in bed rather than reporting/assessing the fall). These are serious allegations that contrast sharply with other families' reports of very safe, attentive care, indicating variability in performance likely tied to shift, unit, or staffing conditions.
Administrative and cultural issues also appear as a recurring theme. While some reviewers commend admissions staff and HR for being kind and helpful, others report unresponsive administrators, apparent nepotism, cliques in nursing management, and rude interactions including a reported racial slur. There are claims of lapses in protocol and communication around significant events: rooms or possessions being cleared without family notification or written consent, an emptied room after a resident's death, and delays in emergency response/EMS. Safety/process concerns extend to building access and security; reviewers reported door alarm malfunctions, denials of exit/door codes, and long waits that felt restrictive and potentially in violation of best practices. Infrastructure comments are again mixed: many praise recent renovations and spotless rooms, but some note older sections of the building, insufficient air conditioning, and dim or confining rooms that could affect mood and recovery.
Patterns that emerge from the reviews point to high variability in experience. The most consistent positives are strong, compassionate direct caregivers, effective rehab services, engaging activities, good food, and cleanliness in many areas. The most serious negatives cluster around leadership and supervision failures, inconsistent quality on the dementia/long-term care side, and isolated but severe allegations of neglect and injury. This split suggests that individual units, shifts, or staff teams may operate very differently; excellent care is clearly provided in many cases, but there are enough troubling reports that potential residents and families should investigate further.
Recommendations for families considering or monitoring care at Westerly: ask specific questions about staffing ratios on the dementia and long-term care units, incident reporting procedures, infection control protocols, emergency response times, and policies for handling resident belongings and post-mortem procedures. Request references from current families, tour the dementia unit at different times of day, and observe shift changes if possible. Clarify how administrators communicate with families after incidents and what written consent processes exist for room/possession changes. For those with loved ones at higher clinical risk (aspiration, complex breathing treatments, dementia), consider arranging more frequent check-ins and confirm who is responsible for those treatments and how competency is verified.
In summary, Westerly Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center receives substantial praise for its frontline caregivers, therapy outcomes, activities program, food, and many aspects of facility upkeep. At the same time, there are multiple, specific, and serious complaints about neglect, injury, infection, and administrative failings — especially on the dementia unit and in matters involving communication and consent. The facility can provide excellent care, but the reviews indicate inconsistent performance and governance concerns that warrant careful, proactive oversight by families and thorough questioning before placement.
