Overall sentiment across the reviews for Rosewood Rehabilitation and Care Center is highly polarized: multiple reviewers report exceptional, compassionate care and effective rehabilitation, while a significant number of reviewers recount serious lapses in care, neglect, theft, and management problems. The facility receives praise for specific staff members, therapy outcomes, and aspects of the physical plant, but the frequency and severity of negative reports create a pattern of inconsistent experience depending on shift, unit, or period of time.
Care quality: Reviews consistently describe two contrasting experiences. Many families praise nurses, CNAs, and therapy staff who are described as knowledgeable, caring, and effective — several accounts highlight successful rehab outcomes, residents improving mood and mobility, and staff who form strong bonds with residents. Conversely, numerous reviews describe neglectful practices: residents left in bed all day, dirty diapers left on residents for hours, delayed or absent responses to call lights, inadequate grooming, rashes or bruises, and at least one allegation of ignored urgent medical needs with extremely serious consequences. This split suggests substantial inconsistency in direct care delivery, with some shifts or teams providing attentive care and others failing to meet basic standards.
Staff behavior and staffing levels: Staffing and staff behavior are frequent themes. Positive comments note friendly, helpful, and attentive caregivers, effective administrators, and a family-like atmosphere in some units. Negative comments detail short staffing (especially weekends and overnight), inattentive graveyard shifts, staff distracted by phones, staff socializing instead of answering calls, and reports of idle or incompetent personnel. Several reviewers describe staff as rude, dismissive, or even vindictive, and at least one family reported retaliation following complaints. These accounts point to irregular staffing quality, turnover concerns, and possible morale or supervision issues that affect resident care.
Facilities and housekeeping: The physical facility receives mixed but often favorable mentions: some reviewers report a well-maintained building, well-kept grounds, remodeled areas, private and nice rooms, and superb housekeeping. Other reviewers, however, describe specific rooms as disgusting or messy, and multiple accounts mention urine/feces odor in rooms. This again suggests unevenness — certain areas and times appear clean and pleasant, while others suffer lapses in sanitation or maintenance.
Dining and activities: Opinions on dining vary. Several reviews praise tasty meals and alternative menu options, while other reviewers say the food is horrible and lacks fresh fruit. Activity programming is also inconsistent: some reviewers report plenty of activities, social engagement, and therapy participation that alleviated depression, while others describe a bare activity room, minimal offerings (Bingo and coloring), and residents left bored in their rooms. These discrepancies could reflect differences between units or times, or recent changes in staffing and programming.
Management and administration: Management is a major point of contention. Some reviewers commend professional administration, helpful reception, effective management and owners, and a receptive administration that listens to families. Others allege mismanagement, an unempathetic or rude administrator, and a drop in quality after new administration fired long-time staff — with new hires described as less caring. Several comments explicitly link declines in care to administrative decisions, suggesting leadership instability or changes that affected staff retention and culture.
Safety, security, and serious allegations: There are alarming reports of theft (jewelry and personal items), missing personal belongings (blow dryer, toiletries), and serious safety concerns like unattended residents and alleged medical neglect. At least one reviewer reported filing an abuse report with Adult Protective Services, and another alleged a failure to call a cardiologist that preceded a death. These are serious red flags that prospective families should investigate directly with the facility, licensing authorities, and any available inspection reports.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The dominant pattern is inconsistency — excellent care and outcomes are reported alongside severe lapses in basic caregiving, safety, and management. Positive and negative experiences often reference the same categories (care, cleanliness, activities, food), suggesting that quality likely varies by staff team, shift, or time period, and may be influenced by recent administrative changes. If considering Rosewood, families should visit multiple times (including nights/weekends), ask about staffing ratios and turnover, request information on theft prevention and incident reporting, review recent inspection and complaint records, meet direct-care staff and the therapy team, and clarify the facility's policies on supervision and medical escalation. The reviews indicate that experiences can be excellent under attentive teams but also potentially harmful when staffing or management problems arise.
