Overall sentiment in the reviews for Westpark Rehabilitation and Living is sharply polarized, with a consistent split between families who report excellent rehabilitation outcomes and compassionate staff, and families who describe serious neglect, safety failures, and administrative dysfunction. The reviews show two distinct experience clusters: one group praising the therapy teams, some nurses and CNAs, and recent improvements under new leadership; the other group reporting systemic problems including understaffing, hygiene issues, medication errors, neglect, and regulatory actions. This polarization suggests highly inconsistent care quality across time, shifts, or units.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most frequently contested themes. Many reviewers praise the physical, occupational, and speech therapy teams — describing strong functional recovery after surgery, daily consistent therapists, and outcomes that exceeded expectations. Several accounts credit the clinical team with preventing hospice placement or saving a life. Conversely, a large number of reviews recount serious care failures: residents left unattended for hours, falls not addressed, delayed or missed pain medications, pressure wounds/bedsores, missed showers, and examples of poor infection control (including C. diff). Specific incidents include reports of residents found lying in waste, long delays for basic needs (water, incontinence care), and medication lapses (lost medications, meds administered hours late). There are multiple reports alleging that physician orders and care plans were ignored.
Staffing, supervision, and management issues are recurring and closely tied to the negative experiences. Understaffing and staff shortages are mentioned repeatedly and linked to slow response times, unmet needs, infrequent showers, delayed medications, and indifferent aides. Several reviewers highlight weekend and after‑hours problems: unplugged televisions, unreachable call buttons and telephones, unattended front desk, and poor coverage. That said, multiple reviews praise individual staff members (nurses, CNAs, therapists, and administrators) for being caring and responsive. Several reviewers also note a leadership turnaround: a new DON, administrator, and department leads are credited with improvements in quality, communication, and morale over the last year.
Hygiene, facilities, and infection control show wide variance in reports. Some families describe clean rooms, pleasant smells, comfortable private rooms, and well‑kept common areas. Others report old or run‑down rooms, dirty linens, urine odors in hallways, roaches, ruined mattresses/pillows, and general unsanitary conditions. Infection control and COVID management are areas of concern for multiple reviewers. These contradictory accounts point to inconsistent environmental standards or uneven performance between units or times.
Administrative, communication, and coordination problems are strongly represented in the negative reviews. Common complaints include failure to notify families about critical events (including deaths), poor discharge planning and coordination with other facilities, missing or lost patient files including DNR orders, difficulties with billing (double charges, being billed after a death), and unresponsive office staff. There are alarming allegations beyond administrative lapses: regulatory fines, a state investigation, unexplained injuries, and even claims of attempted tax fraud using a patient’s identity. These reports, if accurate, indicate serious governance and compliance gaps in past operations.
Dining and daily living services receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers find the food poor, unsuitable for dietary restrictions, or unpleasantly prepared; others praise the kitchen and dining staff. Activity programming is generally noted as a positive in many reviews — residents enjoying bingo, live music, outings, and table games. Social and recreational engagement appears to be one of the facility’s relative strengths in families’ eyes when staffing allows.
Communication and dignity issues emerge in many negative narratives: families describe being spoken to in a condescending manner, staff ignoring requests, and a lack of private space for sensitive conversations. Dementia care is highlighted as a particular concern in a number of reviews, including reports of antipsychotic medications being administered without consent and inadequate behavioral management. Several reviewers explicitly warn others to check on their loved ones frequently, suggesting low trust in day‑to‑day care without family oversight.
A clear pattern emerges where outcomes seem to depend heavily on who is on shift, which unit the resident is in, and whether recent leadership changes have taken hold. Multiple reviewers explicitly state that quality has improved under new leadership while others still report unresolved, serious issues. For prospective families, the most reliable signals from these reviews are: (1) the facility can provide excellent, even life‑saving rehab and therapy when staffed and managed effectively; (2) there have been repeated and severe failures in nursing care, hygiene, medication management, and administration that have resulted in harm and regulatory penalties in some cases; and (3) the experience appears inconsistent enough that tours, direct questions about staffing ratios, medication and antipsychotic consent policies, infection control, discharge procedures, and recent inspection/fine history are essential.
In summary, Westpark Rehabilitation and Living presents a mixed profile. There are demonstrable strengths in therapy services, some dedicated clinical staff, active programming, and pockets of improved management. However, there are frequent and serious complaints about understaffing, neglect, sanitation, medication and care coordination errors, billing/legal problems, and safety incidents. Families should weigh the positive rehabilitation reports against the substantial and recurring negative safety and administrative concerns, verify recent regulatory outcomes and leadership stability, visit in person across shifts (including weekends/after‑hours), and ask targeted questions about policies and staffing before making placement decisions.
