The reviews for Cooper River Post Acute are highly polarized, with a persistent pattern of very positive experiences focused on therapy and certain staff members contrasted against numerous and serious negative reports about facility condition, basic nursing care, and management. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the rehabilitation teams (PT/OT/speech), naming therapists and teams who delivered tailored, one‑on‑one therapy and measurable recovery gains. Multiple families credited therapy staff with enabling earlier discharges, wound healing, and improved mobility and independence. In many positive accounts, admissions personnel, front desk staff, and specific nurses and CNAs are described as compassionate, communicative, and professional, providing peace of mind and supportive care — including end‑of‑life comfort in some cases.
However, an equally large and deeply concerning thread across reviews involves sanitation, safety, and fundamental caregiving. Numerous reviewers described rooms and common areas as filthy: reports include roaches, bedbugs, mold, feces and urine on floors, torn sheets, soiled towels not removed, and strong, pervasive odors. Maintenance issues such as broken beds, clogged toilets, holes in walls, and generally rundown infrastructure were frequently cited. These environmental conditions are often linked by families to neglectful care — residents left in soiled diapers or urine‑soaked clothing, being left in hallways for hours, and call lights going unanswered for long periods. Several reviews explicitly state that residents were found screaming for help or aspirating without timely response. Such accounts are serious red flags concerning resident safety and dignity.
Medical care and nursing quality are described as inconsistent and, at times, dangerous. Multiple reviewers alleged delayed vital sign checks (including claims of a protocol limiting checks to once per shift), medication errors, incorrect charting, and failures in wound care that led to infected wounds or bedsores. At least one account cites an oxygen saturation of 73% and an emergent sequence of care culminating in death; other reviews recount multiple ER transfers believed to be caused by poor facility care. Conversely, several reviewers praised individual nurses and wound care specialists who successfully treated wounds and advocated effectively for patients. This stark divergence suggests that outcomes depend heavily on which staff members are assigned and the wing or shift involved.
Staffing, culture, and communication recur as major themes. Many reviews cite understaffing, especially on night shifts and evenings, leading to longer response times and diminished one‑on‑one care. High staff turnover and lack of continuity (rotating or agency personnel) were blamed for inconsistent care and poor handoffs. Communication problems span inability to reach the facility by phone (busy signals or new phone systems not accepting calls), delayed family notification during emergencies, and poor documentation around hospital transfers. Positive reviews note cases where management or the owner intervened effectively, admissions staff were proactive and kind, and families were kept well informed — underscoring that leadership presence can positively influence outcomes when it occurs.
Dining and activities present mixed impressions: several reviewers appreciated active programming, social events, and occasional high‑quality meals, while many others described the food as cold, inedible, served in styrofoam, or available only for special occasions. Activity staff and certain programs (ice cream socials, entertainers, church services) received praise for enhancing resident quality of life. This split mirrors the overall pattern: pockets of excellence within an otherwise unreliable institutional environment.
Management, billing, and regulatory concerns are also salient. Multiple reviewers mentioned large upfront payments (one cited $9,900 for 30 days), refund delays, disputed refunds, and confrontational interactions with administrators. Several reports referenced health department citations, state fines, and low Medicare ratings, and some reviews indicated ongoing or suggested formal complaints and legal action. These comments, when paired with the safety and sanitation reports, suggest systemic compliance and oversight issues that warrant attention from regulators and prospective families.
In summary, the review corpus portrays Cooper River Post Acute as a facility with notable strengths — especially in therapy and among dedicated individual staff members — but also with serious and recurring weaknesses in cleanliness, basic nursing care, staffing consistency, and management responsiveness. The variability of experiences appears large: some families found compassionate, high‑quality care and measurable recovery, while others reported neglect, unsafe conditions, and traumatic outcomes. For prospective residents and families, key considerations should include: verifying current regulatory status and recent inspection reports, asking specifically about staffing levels on nights and weekends, confirming continuity and names of care staff who will be assigned, touring multiple wings/rooms to assess cleanliness, and clarifying financial and transfer/documentation policies in writing. The pattern in reviews suggests that outcomes at this facility may depend heavily on timing, assigned staff, and management engagement; therefore, close monitoring and clear communication are essential for anyone considering placement here.
