Overall impression: Reviews for Good Samaritan Health & Rehab are highly mixed and polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility for strong rehabilitation services, attentive and compassionate caregivers, and a home-like, clean environment. At the same time, there are multiple, serious complaints describing neglect, unsafe care, medication mismanagement, and poor communication. The result is a facility that appears capable of providing excellent short-term rehab and long-term family-style care in some cases, but also capable of lapses in basic safety and responsiveness in others.
Care quality and rehabilitation: One of the clearest, recurring strengths in the reviews is the rehabilitation program. Numerous reviewers credited therapy teams and specific therapists (Naz, Lolly, DeKeivis, Donna, Tiffanie and others) with helping residents regain mobility, strength and independence. Several accounts describe therapy staff as patient, professional, encouraging and going above and beyond. Alongside these positive reports, however, are strong negative reports about therapy cancellations or non-delivery — examples include braces not supplied, rehab sessions cancelled, and lack of speech or limb therapy when needed. This contrast suggests variability in therapy availability and follow-through: when therapy is delivered as intended, it is highly effective and valued; when it is not, families experience serious setbacks.
Nursing, medication and safety concerns: Reviews show a stark split in nursing care. Many reviews describe attentive nurses and techs who provide total care, keep residents clean and presentable, and give families peace of mind. Conversely, several reviews recount disturbing episodes of neglect: delayed or missing nightly medications, meds ordered then canceled, long waits for critical meds, failure to feed or change patients, failure to respond to call bells, and mismanagement of fall risks. There are reports linking these failures to grave outcomes, including a broken hip, death, and an environment deemed unsafe for a stroke patient. Medication mismanagement and staffing gaps are recurrent themes and represent some of the most serious and repeated concerns.
Staffing, communication and management: Staffing stability and communication quality vary widely. Positive reviews describe staff who act like family, clear communication during admissions or reservations, and responsive administrative staff. Negative reports emphasize frequent staff turnover, short staffing, rude or unhelpful front desk behavior (including hanging up on callers), unanswered calls, lack of sympathy or family contact after adverse events, and billing disputes. Some reviewers explicitly state a perception that financial considerations or billing practices are prioritized over patient welfare. These management and communication failures often amplify the impact of clinical problems and erode trust.
Facility cleanliness, odors and environment: Many reviewers praise the facility as very clean, home-like and pleasant-smelling, contributing to comfort for residents and families. Yet an opposing set of reviews describe dark, dirty interiors and pervasive, troubling odors — including urine, alcohol, marijuana and cigarette smoke — and note staff smoking on premises. The contradictory reports suggest inconsistent enforcement of cleanliness and smoking policies across units or shifts, and indicate that sensory/environmental issues may be intermittent but significant when they occur.
Dining, activities and daily life: Dietary services receive mostly positive remarks for accommodating individual preferences and providing good food. Several reviews note daily laundry service, plenty of activities, and residents not being confined to rooms during the day, which supports quality of life. One caveat raised was that some positive everyday services can be undermined by inattentive staffing or medication issues (e.g., meals not provided when patients are unattended, or clothing changes missed).
Safety and trust issues: Alongside praise for caring staff, there are serious allegations that undermine trust: staff theft, unsafe handling of patients, and insufficient family communication in critical incidents. Some reviewers strongly recommend the facility (especially for short-term rehab), while others urge it be shut down. This dramatic divergence indicates that experiences are highly dependent on unit, shift, staff assignment or individual resident needs, and that potential residents/families should investigate current conditions thoroughly.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The reviews indicate the facility can provide very good rehabilitation and compassionate long-term care, but also has recurring problems with staffing stability, medication management, and inconsistent cleanliness/environmental control. Prospective residents and families should: 1) confirm current staffing levels and turnover rates; 2) ask specifically about medication administration protocols and contingency plans; 3) verify the availability and scheduling reliability of required therapies (PT/OT/speech); 4) tour multiple units at different times to assess odor/cleanliness and smoking policies; 5) request references from recent families whose loved ones had similar needs (short-term rehab vs long-term custodial care); and 6) review inspection reports and complaint histories with state regulators.
Conclusion: Good Samaritan Health & Rehab elicits strong positive testimonials when therapy teams and dedicated caregivers are present and resourced, and strong negative reports when staffing, medication management, or administration falter. The facility may be an excellent option for some (particularly short-term rehab) but carries notable, documented risks that families should proactively evaluate. The mixed reviews emphasize the importance of asking pointed questions, verifying current performance, and monitoring care closely after admission.
