Overall sentiment: The reviews for St. Teresa Nursing and Rehabilitation Center are highly polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility, often highlighting compassionate direct-care staff, effective rehabilitation services, a clean and welcoming physical environment, engaging activities, and successful care transitions. Conversely, many reviews report serious clinical and operational failures: chronic understaffing, missed medications, poor responsiveness to call lights, inconsistent clinical competence, and even allegations of life-threatening mistakes. The strongest theme is variability — experiences range from ‘‘5-star, family-like care’’ with rapid rehab success to reports describing neglect, medical errors, and catastrophic outcomes.
Care quality and clinical safety: Multiple reviewers describe excellent nursing and therapy care, with documented cases of rapid recovery, individualized rehab plans, and attentive respiratory staff (including praise for specific respiratory supervisors). However, a concerning cluster of reviews detail clinical safety failures: missed oxygen checks, oxygen equipment left off, failed insulin administration leading to extremely high blood glucose, improper ventilator use or mismanagement of respiratory needs, delayed responses to stroke symptoms, undocumented or delayed administration of pain medications, and delays or refusals to call 911. Several families reported preventable infections, significant wounds or bedsores, and hospital admissions following decline while at the facility. These are serious allegations repeated across reviews; they indicate inconsistent clinical oversight and, in some cases, potential gaps in staff training, supervision, and policies for escalation of care.
Staffing, communication, and management: A recurrent theme is understaffing and high turnover. Many reviews report long call-light wait times, nurses appearing distracted (on phones), CNAs not completing routine rounds, and short-staffed shifts especially on weekends. Communication problems extend to families — unreturned calls, administrators or social workers not responding, and reports of staff hanging up on family members. Some positive notes: several social workers, front-desk staff, and admissions personnel are singled out by name for being compassionate and helpful. A subset of reviews attribute improvements to new ownership or management changes, but many still report profit-driven decisions, unpaid wages claims, billing/receipt problems, and price increases without service improvements.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Many reviewers praise the facility’s appearance: clean rooms, shiny floors, pleasant grounds, and comfortable communal spaces. Housekeeping and maintenance receive frequent commendation. Yet other reviews describe strikingly different conditions — rooms smelling of human waste, soiled diapers left in rooms, missing laundry, and inconsistent hygienic care. This dichotomy suggests that while the facility infrastructure and housekeeping can be strong, care execution (timely toileting, diaper changes, and personal hygiene by nursing/CNA staff) is inconsistent and depends heavily on staffing and shift coverage.
Therapy, activities, and dining: Therapy receives both strong praise and criticism. Numerous families credit the rehab staff with excellent therapy that enabled quick discharges and regained function; others say therapy was inadequate, rushed, or financially motivated (forced therapy). Activities and social programming are frequently highlighted as positive features that support resident engagement. Dining reviews are mixed: several mention homemade meals and dietary accommodations as a plus, while several other reviewers describe the food as terrible. Overall, social and recreational offerings appear robust but subjective satisfaction with dining varies.
Serious adverse reports and risk indicators: Several reviewers allege life-threatening outcomes — emergency hospital transfers, severe infections, brain injury or death tied to alleged neglect or clinical error. There are also claims of stolen medications, refusal to return meds, and accusations of staff misconduct. While these are reports from family members and may be anecdotal, their number and severity are notable and should be considered red flags for prospective families. Reviewers sometimes advise extra precautions (e.g., installing surveillance cameras) and warn others to vet the facility thoroughly.
Notable positives and improvements: Despite the serious negative reports, many families relate overwhelmingly positive experiences: caring nurses and CNAs, attentive respiratory personnel (particularly in ventilator unit reviews), excellent social work/case management support, breezy admissions, helpful maintenance, and vibrant activities. Several reviewers specifically say the facility felt like family, that their loved ones were treated with dignity, and that they would recommend St. Teresa. Some reviews specifically mention improvement under new ownership and praise individual employees by name who went above and beyond.
Guidance for prospective families: Reviews indicate large variability in day-to-day care quality. If considering placement, families should: (1) tour multiple times including evenings and weekends to observe staffing and responsiveness; (2) ask about nurse-to-resident ratios, weekend staffing, respiratory competence, wound-care protocols, and emergency escalation procedures; (3) inquire about turnover rates and recent management changes; (4) request written medication administration, infection-control, and wound-care policies; (5) check references and ask to speak with current residents’ families; and (6) monitor the first days closely (medication accuracy, toileting, call-light response, documentation). Given the serious allegations in several reviews, ensure clear channels of communication with administration and consider contingency plans should clinical needs escalate.
Conclusion: St. Teresa presents as a facility with real strengths — strong rehabilitation potential, many compassionate frontline caregivers, and an attractive, well-kept campus. However, the frequency and severity of negative reports — especially relating to understaffing, medication/respiratory errors, neglect, and poor communication — are significant and recurring. These mixed, polarized reports make it essential that families perform rigorous due diligence, monitor care closely, and verify that the facility can consistently meet the clinical and safety needs of their loved one before making placement decisions.
