Overall sentiment: The reviews for Eaton Creek Post Acute are highly polarized, with strong, repeated praise for certain staff members and therapy outcomes juxtaposed against serious allegations of neglect, abuse, theft, and systemic care failures. Many reviewers report exceptionally positive interactions with specific individuals—especially a social worker named Kris, and nurses frequently identified as Jessica Bass or 'Nurse Jess'—and consistently commend the rehabilitation teams and some clinical departments. At the same time, a substantial portion of reviews describe alarming safety and quality-of-care issues that range from poor hygiene and untreated wounds to alleged physical abuse and theft of personal items. This split creates a pattern of variability: some residents and families experienced compassionate, professional care leading to successful rehab and good communication, while others recount traumatic neglect and harmful incidents.
Care quality and clinical issues: A key theme is the divergence between the rehabilitation and therapy services and the basic nursing/personal care. Therapy teams (PT/OT/rehab) are repeatedly described as excellent, motivating, and successful in helping residents regain independence. Occupational therapy and certain wound care nurses receive high praise for individualized attention and clinical skill. Conversely, nursing and CNA-level care are the focus of most negative reports: unanswered call bells, residents left in soiled linens for hours, failure to bathe, dehydration, untreated pressure injuries and UTIs, medication delays or mistakes, and even allegations of a nurse physically assaulting a patient. Several reviews indicate that problems escalated over time—families sensed an initial period of good communication and care at admission which later degraded. The contrast suggests pockets of strong clinical practice coexisting with areas of severe neglect, inconsistent adherence to protocols, and potential gaps in staff training or oversight.
Staffing, professionalism, and culture: Staffing is a recurrent concern and a source of mixed impressions. Many reviewers call certain staff members "heroes," describing compassion, patience, and family-like treatment. Yet numerous reports indicate the facility is understaffed, relies on temporary staff unfamiliar with residents’ needs, and contains “rotten apples” whose behavior ranges from rude and unhelpful to allegedly abusive. Several reviews accuse management or specific leaders (e.g., director of nursing) of being unprofessional or dismissive; others praise administrators for turning things around, being communicative, and improving culture. This inconsistency points to significant variability in leadership effectiveness and staff accountability across different shifts or time periods. Reports of phones unanswered, staff arguing, and staff not receiving or acting on daily reports further highlight systemic communication breakdowns.
Safety, incidents, and serious allegations: Multiple reviews describe severe safety incidents: residents left on beds without hygiene for days, patients found on the floor asking for help, development of bedsores and sores from prolonged sitting, alleged theft of money and belongings, and at least one allegation of physical assault corroborated by emergency staff. There are mentions of police involvement, 911 calls, and ombudsman review. One review reports a resident’s death two weeks after admission, and others describe traumatic experiences leading families to move loved ones to other facilities. These reports raise red flags about patient safety, supervision, reporting practices, and regulatory compliance in portions of the facility’s operations.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Descriptions of the physical environment are mixed. Some reviewers praise a clean building, single-floor layout, semi-private rooms, and recent renovations (paint, flooring). Others mention noticeable urine or other odors, dirty hand sanitizer, cracked water jugs not replaced, and rooms left in disarray. Maintenance issues—wet beds, broken equipment, and guards not fixed—are cited alongside positive comments about well-lit common areas. This variable feedback suggests that cleanliness and maintenance standards may fluctuate, possibly tied to staffing, shift coverage, or management priorities.
Dining and resident life: Dining experiences are inconsistent across reviews. Several families commend the dietary staff for individualized service, well-balanced meals, and responsiveness to special needs, whereas others call the food institutional, unsafe for certain diets (raw pork, not diabetic-friendly), or served in inadequate portions and temperature. Activity programming and resident engagement receive praise in many accounts—residents seen smiling and participating in activities—while other reviewers report reduced stimulation, isolation during COVID-related visitation restrictions, and inadequate ambulation assistance.
Communication and management responsiveness: Communication is another bifurcated theme. Numerous positive reviews highlight excellent admission experiences with empathetic staff, clear explanations, and timely updates—again often crediting certain named staff. Conversely, other families report poor communication, unanswered phones, and being ignored or accused when raising concerns. Several reviewers report that calls for help went unaddressed for long periods and that temporary staff were unfamiliar with resident needs. There are reports of management promising corrective action but failing to follow through, prompting involvement of external agencies in some cases.
Notable patterns and context: The reviews reflect a facility with strong clinical and administrative performers who deliver high-quality rehabilitation and individualized care for many residents, creating positive outcomes and appreciative families. However, the volume and severity of negative reports—particularly relating to neglect, hygiene, wound care, theft, and safety—cannot be overlooked. These negative incidents are often described as episodic but severe, and they frequently involve failure to respond to basic needs (call bells, toileting, bathing) or failures in staff training and supervision. COVID-era policies (visitation limits, isolation) exacerbated stress for some families, though some appreciated infection control efforts. There are repeated mentions that the facility may be Medicare/insurance-driven in certain practices, which some families perceived as prioritizing finances over individualized care.
Takeaway and recommendations: Anyone evaluating Eaton Creek Post Acute should be aware of this sharp polarity of experiences. Prospective families should ask targeted questions about nursing staffing ratios, call bell response times, wound and skin care protocols, staff turnover, background checks, and how allegations of abuse or theft are handled. Visiting in person, speaking directly to therapy and nursing leads (and any named exemplary staff), checking recent inspection reports, and monitoring for consistent communication after admission are prudent steps. The facility appears capable of excellent rehabilitation and has standout staff members and departments, but there are also repeated, serious allegations that warrant caution, verification, and active advocacy for residents’ safety and dignity.
