The reviews of Webb House Retirement Center are sharply polarized, with a mixture of high praise for particular staff members and facility features alongside very serious allegations of neglect, safety lapses, and unsanitary conditions. Several reviewers explicitly commend specific caregivers — most notably a lead nurse named Dusti — and describe a supportive team of LPNs and assistants, friendly help, modern and comfortable spaces, and amenities such as private terraces, screened-in porches, a movie room, and a computer room. At the same time, multiple independent summaries describe neglectful care, safety incidents, and grave health consequences for residents.
Care quality and safety emerge as the central themes of concern. Numerous accounts describe residents being left in urine and feces (including feces found in bathrooms and on residents' hands), delayed toileting assistance, infrequent or ineffective rounding by nursing staff, and residents left unattended for extended periods. These lapses are reported to have led to repeated falls, bruising, serious injuries (including a cracked back), hospitalizations, dehydration, pneumonia, and at least one death following a hospital stay. Falls and delayed assistance appear to be recurring and consequential problems, and reviewers link them to insufficient staffing and slow nurse response times.
Staffing and staff behavior are described in conflicting ways. Several reviews praise individual caregivers as caring, sweet, and hardworking — with explicit praise for Dusti and some LPNs and aides who provide quality care. Conversely, other reviewers report widespread neglect, staff yelling at residents, and residents being treated as objects, which contributes to emotional distress for residents and families. The contrast suggests inconsistent staff performance that may vary by shift, unit, or specific personnel. Multiple reviewers explicitly call out inadequate staffing levels as a likely driver of failures in timely toileting, fall prevention, and routine observation.
Facility condition and amenities are another area of mixed feedback. Positive comments emphasize newer, nicer, and well-appointed spaces, private terraces, a homey feeling, and recreational amenities like a movie room and computer room, which some residents clearly enjoy. Yet reviewers also note practical environmental concerns that affect safety and comfort: dim or poor lighting is repeatedly mentioned, and locked areas are cited as problematic. Additionally, unsanitary conditions reported in bathrooms and on residents are a major red flag that contrasts sharply with the otherwise modern facility descriptions.
Dining and activities receive less consistent attention but are still mentioned. A few reviewers express concerns about meals, while others point to amenities and happy residents enjoying facility features. The mixed signals imply variability in these services as well — some residents find the environment and activities satisfactory while others identify lapses in basic care and housekeeping that undermine quality of life.
Taken together, the pattern is one of significant variability: the facility has clear strengths (certain committed staff members, modern and comfortable physical spaces, and useful recreational amenities) but also serious, repeated weaknesses that have led to harm in some cases (neglect, infection risk, falls, and even death). The most frequently cited and urgent issues are inadequate staffing, delayed toileting and rounds, unsanitary conditions, unattended falls, and poor lighting. These are safety- and quality-of-care concerns that would warrant immediate attention.
For families and prospective residents, these reviews suggest the importance of probing specific operational details before deciding: ask about staffing ratios by shift, fall-prevention protocols, toileting and rounding schedules, infection-control and housekeeping procedures, incident reporting and follow-up, and supervision/training for aides and nurses. When touring, observe lighting, cleanliness (especially bathrooms), staff-resident interactions, and whether staff appear available to assist residents promptly. Also consider speaking directly to the praised staff members (e.g., Dusti) and asking management how they address the negative issues reported. The contrast between glowing and alarming reviews indicates that experiences at Webb House can vary widely; careful inquiry and monitoring are advisable to assess whether the unit or shift a prospective resident will enter provides consistently safe, responsive care.
