The reviews for Magnolia Manor - Rock Hill reveal a deeply mixed and polarized picture of care. A recurring theme is extreme variability: some families and residents describe compassionate, skilled nursing, excellent therapy, and good communication, while many others report neglect, unsafe conditions, and significant lapses in basic care. This split creates a pattern where individual staff members and specific shifts or teams can strongly influence a resident's experience — with some caregivers and therapists receiving repeated praise by name and others accused of inattention or outright neglect.
Care quality is one of the most frequently contested areas. Positive reports highlight high-quality rehabilitation services, effective physical and occupational therapy, successful discharge follow-up, and timely clinical actions (for example, IV treatment for dehydration and mattress changes when needed). Several families credit the therapy team and certain nurses/CNAs with notable improvement in their loved ones. Conversely, a large number of reviews document serious clinical concerns: residents left in soiled bedding or feces for hours or days, development or worsening of bedsores with delayed wound checks (one wound allegedly not checked for 14 days), missed or late medications (including insulin), and reports of overmedication/sedation. Multiple accounts describe falls that were not followed by proper medical evaluation or adequate family notification, and some serious medical events (seizures, chest pain) that resulted in hospitalization. These safety and medical-care failures have led some families to say their relative's condition declined substantially while at the facility and to call for closure or regulatory attention.
Staffing and staff behavior are central to the polarized views. Many reviews praise specific nurses, CNAs, therapists and administrative staff for being compassionate, communicative and professional. Several reviewers explicitly name employees (Dawn, Cherry, Meredith, Kelsey, Laurie, Anna, Patsy, Julian) and the Gentiva Hospice team as providing excellent care. At the same time, numerous reviewers describe chronic understaffing, especially on night/third shifts, with unanswered call bells, long waits for assistance, staff sleeping on duty, and staff who are perceived as rude or uncaring. Families repeatedly note a disparity between day-shift performance (generally better) and night-shift performance (often problematic). This inconsistency contributes to an unpredictable experience where residents’ outcomes depend heavily on who is on duty.
Facility, cleanliness and infection control also draw sharply contrasting accounts. Some families report clean rooms, well-maintained common areas, and active housekeeping. However, an equally large set of reviewers report pervasive foul odors of urine and feces, dirty patient rooms, laundry issues, bugs, roaches, rat droppings, moldy vents, and other signs of poor sanitation. These sanitation concerns extend to allegations of inadequate COVID management and unsanitary conditions that increase infection risk. The building itself is repeatedly described as old and in need of maintenance; parking and grounds upkeep are also flagged as problem areas.
Dining, activities and amenities are mixed. A number of reviewers praised the food and enjoyed the menu, and some residents appreciated outings and engagement activities (e.g., zoo trip). Yet many others complained that the food was unappetizing and that their loved ones were not encouraged or helped to eat, contributing to poor nutrition. Private rooms and family-like social environments are reported by some, while others note depressing aesthetics and unattractive, outdated furnishings.
Management, communication and follow-through receive varied assessments. Several families praise administrators and day staff for honest, prompt communication and for resolving issues when raised. In other cases, administrators are perceived as unhelpful or disengaged; families report not being invited to care-planning meetings, inadequate incident reporting, discharge orders not followed, and failures to arrange needed home health services or referrals. Some reviewers say the facility provided good post-discharge follow-up and a smooth rehab transition, while others describe discharge mishandling and loss of personal items.
Overall patterns and recommendations: reviewers frequently highlight two consistent patterns — (1) therapy and select clinical staff can be strong assets, producing good rehab outcomes for some residents; and (2) nursing and custodial care appear inconsistent and under-resourced, with many reports of neglect, sanitation failures, medication and safety errors, and night-shift problems. Given these patterns, the facility appears capable of providing good care under the right circumstances (adequate staffing, attentive staff members), but the frequency and severity of negative incidents in many reviews indicate systemic problems that have led some families to report serious harm. Prospective residents and families should weigh the potential benefits (good therapy, some compassionate staff, affordability/Medicaid acceptance) against the documented risks (neglect, safety and sanitation concerns, inconsistent staffing) and should ask specific questions about staffing ratios, night-shift coverage, wound and fall protocols, infection control measures, how personal items are secured, and how families are included in care planning before admission. Families currently involved with the facility should consider frequent visits, thorough documentation of concerns, and clear escalation to administration or regulatory agencies if they observe unsafe or neglectful practices.
