Overall sentiment: Reviews for Lexington Medical Center Extended Care are highly mixed but skew strongly negative in frequency and intensity. A subset of families and residents report excellent, compassionate care, cleanliness, and successful rehabilitation; however a large and consistent portion of reviews describe serious quality and safety concerns. The most recurring themes are chronic understaffing, inconsistent and sometimes abusive or neglectful caregiving, medication and feeding errors, infection problems, and management/administrative failures. These problems are often described as systemic rather than isolated incidents, and multiple reviewers urge outside inspection or closure.
Care quality and clinical safety: Many reviews describe failures in basic nursing care—missed baths, failure to turn immobile residents, infrequent bed checks, leaving residents in soiled diapers for hours, and inadequate skin monitoring that allegedly led to bedsores. Several reports indicate serious clinical lapses: missed or wrong medications, over-sedation that prevented eating, aspiration events (one reviewer said their loved one almost aspirated twice), feeding-tube mismanagement, urinary tract infections progressing to sepsis, and delayed transfer to hospital care. There are also multiple accounts of inadequate rehab services (or rehab offered only for show), resulting in stalled recovery or discharge in worse condition than admission. These specific clinical failures raise significant safety concerns in the reviews.
Staffing, culture, and interpersonal behavior: Staffing issues are the most frequently cited concern. Reviewers report a high resident-to-CNA ratio (examples such as 12+ residents per CNA were mentioned), aides quitting, and high turnover. While some aides and nurses are praised as caring and attentive—SAYSHANA is singled out by name—care quality is described as highly inconsistent and shift-dependent. Numerous accounts describe staff distracted by phones, slow or no response to nurse calls (including claims of hidden call buttons), rudeness, belittling comments, and perceived favoritism. Several reviewers reported that management was unresponsive to complaints or dismissive of family concerns, contributing to an impression of poor leadership and a money-driven, corporate culture that undervalues front-line staff.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: Descriptions of the physical plant are mixed. Many reviewers complimented the facility’s appearance—spacious, comfortable lobby, screened-in porch, outdoor areas, calming waterfall, and clean/immaculate rooms in some cases. Others noted maintenance and housekeeping problems: rooms unswept for days, inconsistent room features (some rooms with TVs while others lack them), and concerns about the dining environment (residents parked in front of a TV with little sunlight). The facility’s size and corporate scope (described as one of the largest in multiple states) were perceived by some as contributing to impersonal care and weaker oversight.
Dining and activities: Opinions on dining and activities vary. Some reviewers enjoyed the meals (breakfast praised, some residents loved the food), and a few mentioned good activities and social areas (piano, socializing). Conversely, many reviews complain about poor food quality (cold meals, room-temperature milk, inconsistent menu), residents getting sick from food, lack of meaningful activities, and residents being put in front of a TV for long periods. These mixed reports again point to variability by unit/shift and individual staff engagement.
Administration, admissions, and discharge: Administrative practices draw frequent criticism. Families reported poor communication, mishandled discharges (including claims of discharge without proper papers and sending residents home unable to walk or eat), denied family access, and a frustrating, sometimes discriminatory admissions/interview process. Several reviewers described management turnover, poor oversight, favoritism, and administration that appeared financially driven. There are calls in the reviews for regulatory investigation and unannounced inspections; some reviewers explicitly recommended considering smaller, more tightly run homes instead.
Patterns and variability: A key pattern is the extreme variability of experience. While a noteworthy minority of reviewers describe compassionate care, good therapy outcomes, and a clean environment, a substantial number recount severe neglect, safety events, and poor management. The differences often correlate with which aides/nurses were on duty, time of day, and which unit the resident was placed in. This patchy performance suggests the facility has pockets of very good care but also systemic weaknesses that allow frequent and severe lapses.
Conclusion and cautionary note: Based on the reviews provided, Lexington Medical Center Extended Care exhibits both strong positives (certain compassionate staff members, attractive common areas, and clean rooms in many reports) and serious negatives (chronic understaffing, safety and clinical care failures, poor management responsiveness, and inconsistent dining/housekeeping). Families considering this facility should be aware of the variability and reported safety incidents. If considering placement, prospective residents and families should: (1) tour the specific unit and observe staffing/shift changes, (2) ask about staff-to-resident ratios and turnover, (3) clarify discharge and infection-control policies, (4) request references from current families in the same unit, and (5) document and escalate any care concerns promptly. Several reviewers recommended seeking smaller facilities or insisting on regular, direct oversight because the positive experiences, while real, are not uniformly guaranteed across the facility according to the reviews.
