The reviews for Brookview Healthcare Center are highly polarized, reflecting two very different sets of experiences that together produce a complex overall picture. A substantial portion of reviews praise individual staff members, particularly in rehabilitation services, and describe positive, even outstanding care experiences where therapists, some nurses, and certain administrative staff are compassionate, competent, and go above and beyond. At the same time, a sizable and serious set of complaints describe systemic failures: severe understaffing, lapses in basic care, safety issues, poor sanitation, and breakdowns in communication. The aggregated sentiment therefore reads as a facility with notable strengths in pockets (especially rehab and specific staff members) but with significant and recurring operational and safety concerns that have harmed residents in multiple accounts.
Care quality and clinical safety represent the most consequential themes. Positive accounts repeatedly highlight excellent physical and occupational therapy, successful rehab outcomes, and therapists who are interactive, motivating, and supportive. These successes led to regained function and discharge home in many reports. Contrasting sharply, however, are multiple reports of missed or delayed medications (including medications not given for over a week), long periods without physician assessment, slow or absent responses to call buttons, and delayed treatment for infections. Some reviewers reported very serious medical consequences linked to alleged neglect: dehydration, weight loss, kidney failure, hospital transfers, and other acute declines. There are also allegations of false charting (e.g., claims that blood sugar or other checks were done when they were not), which raises additional concerns about documentation integrity.
Staffing and personnel issues are central to both praise and criticism. Many reviewers named specific staff members—most commonly Kayce, Kasey, and Mary—who displayed professionalism, advocacy, responsiveness, and compassionate care. Numerous accounts describe a family-like supportive environment where staff collaborate and treat residents with dignity. Conversely, a frequent counterpoint is chronic understaffing that requires heavy reliance on agency or contract staff. This reliance has reportedly produced inconsistent care, rotating staff unfamiliar with residents, desk-bound or rushed nursing staff, aides who do not visit rooms, and slow call-button responses. Several reviewers described staff as rude, unhelpful, or aggravated; others reported staff lying, being patronizing, or not escalating issues. The result is a bifurcated staff narrative: outstanding individuals and teams in some shifts or units, and neglectful, inadequate coverage in others.
Facility, housekeeping, and safety complaints are prominent and specific. Multiple reviewers reported unsanitary conditions—bad smells, dried blood on rails, bedding and mattress problems, urine and toothpaste left in bathrooms, and even bug-related complaints. Maintenance concerns such as malfunctioning windows and hard, plastic mattresses were mentioned. There are also specific safety allegations, including unsafe wires tied to beds and delays in code access, which raise red flags beyond routine cleanliness. In several reports, personal belongings went missing or were left in soiled conditions (lost dentures, stolen or missing clothes), and some families described clothes being returned in poor condition. While other reviewers described rooms as clean and spacious and praised housekeeping, the sheer volume and severity of negative cleanliness and safety allegations create a significant concern.
Dining and activities show a mixed, inconsistent picture. Some families and residents praised dietary staff and described adequate or even excellent meals; others criticized the food as poor, sandwich-heavy, or unacceptable and reported that residents were not fed when needed. Activity programming was likewise uneven—some reviews note two daily activities and engaging programming, while others say activities are minimal (bingos observed), not resident-centered, or absent. Several complaints described a one-size-fits-all approach to activities and a lack of individualized, meaningful engagement.
Management, communication, and administration responses are a recurring theme of variability. Some reviewers praised admissions coordinators and managers for advocacy, responsiveness, and professional conduct. Positive managerial examples combined with regular updates (for example weekly COVID updates) and effective problem resolution are noted. Conversely, other reviewers described administration as unresponsive, patronizing, or difficult to work with, with poor communication following hospital admissions and a failure to contact power of attorney or families about changes in condition. Regulatory involvement was mentioned by some reviewers (DHEC), implying that complaints reached official oversight levels in certain instances. There are also mentions of questionable billing practices and concerns about background checks and staff vetting.
Patterns and takeaway: The dominant pattern is high variability. Where rehab and certain nursing or administrative staff are involved, families often report excellent, compassionate, and outcome-focused care. Where coverage depends on understaffed shifts, agency personnel, or when facility systems break down, the reviews describe neglect, safety incidents, and poor sanitation leading to significant harm. The presence of named individuals repeatedly praised indicates that strong, committed staff exist and can provide high-quality care; however, recurring systemic issues—staffing shortages, inconsistent housecleaning, medication administration failures, and poor communication—are serious and repeated enough to warrant careful scrutiny by prospective residents or families.
In summary, Brookview Healthcare Center appears capable of providing exceptional rehabilitation and, at times, compassionate nursing care, largely driven by specific staff members and therapy teams. Simultaneously, repeated and severe negative reports about basic care neglect, unsafe conditions, lost property, poor housecleaning, slow emergency and call responses, and administrative communication failures create a substantial risk profile. Anyone evaluating Brookview should weigh the documented successes in rehab and the names of highly recommended staff against multiple accounts of systemic understaffing and safety/quality failures. The reviews suggest that experiences can be excellent under certain staffing patterns and units, but can also be dangerous or neglectful under others, making due diligence, direct inquiries about current staffing and state inspection history, and close monitoring essential for any prospective resident or family.
