Overall sentiment across the reviews is sharply mixed and polarized: a substantial number of families and residents praise Aiken Rehabilitation and Care Center for its compassionate, family-like care, effective rehabilitation outcomes, and select standout employees, while an equally significant set of reviewers report troubling quality, safety, and cleanliness issues. The strongest positive theme is the human element — many reviewers emphasize that certain nurses, CNAs, therapists, and activity staff go above and beyond, treat residents like family, and deliver excellent clinical and emotional support. Multiple names recur positively (for example Jimmy, Rosemarie, Mary Kelly, Karen R, Stephanie, Deborah, Kearra Grate, Valerie), and several accounts specifically credit the facility with successful rehab stays that returned loved ones home. When the staff and therapy teams are engaged and well-coordinated, reviewers describe attentive nursing, effective therapy, compassionate end-of-life care, and friendly activity programming (music, bingo, caroling). Some reviewers also note modernized areas, comfortable rooms, gardens and koi pond, responsive maintenance, and reasonable pricing as strengths.
However, a major and recurring negative pattern is inconsistency in care quality and serious concerns about cleanliness and safety. Multiple reviews describe extreme lapses: urine- or fecal-stained clothing left on residents, beds left wet to dry, oxygen equipment mishandled, trash and soiled items on the floor, strong odors, mildewed tiles, and peeling paint. These reports escalate beyond mere maintenance grievances and include allegations of neglect — missed personal care, residents forgotten at meals, improper skin/immobility care, and even exposure to unsanitary conditions. Several reviewers explicitly called out infection-control and dignity issues and reported filing complaints or expecting/state DHEC investigations. This sharp contrast — highly attentive care on some shifts versus neglectful and unsafe conditions on others — is a core theme.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication are persistent areas of concern. Many reviewers report long wait times for nurses or CNAs, unanswered call lights, safety alarms not promptly addressed, and poor night-shift responsiveness. The telephone system and in-room communication are repeatedly criticized: outdated phone infrastructure, lack of in-room phones, and delays at the nursing station were cited as practical barriers to family contact and timely care. Families also describe inconsistent transparency and communication from management and social work, including inadequate updates about residents' conditions and billing/administrative confusion in some cases. Conversely, other families found staff to be communicative and welcoming, demonstrating the center’s wide variability across shifts and individual employees.
Dining and dietary services appear uneven. Several reviewers enjoyed the food and felt diet needs were met, while others reported late meals, incorrect menus (including lack of diabetic options), kitchen errors that led to illness, and shortages (no ice, no snacks). These inconsistencies suggest that dietary performance depends heavily on staffing and shift-level management, and have real clinical implications for residents with specific nutritional needs.
Facilities and amenities get mixed remarks. Positive accounts highlight clean, spacious rooms, well-maintained gardens, koi ponds, and ongoing renovations that are improving the environment. Negative accounts point to semi-private rooms that are cramped with limited privacy, dated building systems, mildewed ceiling tiles, peeling paint, and persistent foul odors. Several reviewers noted renovation activity — some welcomed updates but also reported that parts of the facility (for example, the rehab room) were not yet accessible or visible during their stay.
Activities and therapy are a bright spot in many reports: an active and praised activities department, music programs, bingo, and individual engagement were described as enhancing residents’ daily life. Therapy staff and rehabilitation teams are credited in many success stories for helping residents regain strength and return home. However, some residents did not participate in activities or felt isolated, which again links back to staffing levels and individualized attention — when activity staff are proactive and well-resourced, programming is strong; when not, participation and benefit drop.
Management, oversight, and safety governance also show mixed signals. Positive mentions include helpful admissions, some transparency on billing, responsive maintenance, and staff who make families feel welcome. On the other hand, serious complaints have been raised to regulatory authorities (DHEC) and at least one reviewer reported filing a case, indicating enough concern from some families that they escalated beyond internal feedback. Reviews suggest a need for stronger, consistent oversight to ensure that policies on infection control, dignity/respect, timely response, and dietary needs are reliably followed across all shifts.
In summary, Aiken Rehabilitation and Care Center displays strong potential and clear strengths — notably compassionate individual caregivers, effective therapy and rehab outcomes for some residents, pleasant amenities, and pockets of very good nursing and activity programming. However, these positives are counterbalanced by frequent and serious negative reports: inconsistent staffing, responsiveness failures, sanitation and safety lapses, poor dietary handling, and variable communication with families. The decisive pattern is variability: the resident experience appears highly dependent on which staff are on duty and which part of the building a resident occupies.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: visit the facility multiple times across different shifts (including nights and weekends) to gauge consistency; ask for specifics about staffing ratios, call-light response times, infection-control policies, and recent inspection/complaint histories (including any DHEC results); inquire how they handle diabetic and therapeutic diets and how substitutions are managed; observe cleanliness in resident rooms and common areas and ask about the timeline and scope of renovations; request to meet therapy staff and understand typical therapy schedules; and get commitments in writing about roommate matching, privacy, and in-room communication (phones/call systems). If possible, talk to families of current residents who have had longer stays to better understand long-term patterns rather than single-shift impressions. Given the serious nature of some allegations, verify regulatory and licensing records and ensure that any particular clinical concerns (wound care, oxygen management, immobility care) have clear protocols and audits in place before making placement decisions.
