Overall sentiment for Ridgmar Medical Lodge is highly polarized: many reviewers report exemplary rehab services, caring clinicians, and a clean, attractive facility, while a substantial number of reviewers describe serious lapses in safety, responsiveness, and management. The most consistent positive theme is the facility's inpatient rehabilitation and therapy programs — multiple reviewers single out physical therapists and therapy teams (named staff include Devin, Jerry, Matt, Sarah, Naurita) as kind, motivating, and effective in returning patients home. Several reviewers specifically praise wound-care nurses (notably Shawn) and other named nurses and aides (Anna, Kat, Annette), and admissions and front-desk staff (Kelli, Sara) receive frequent positive mentions for helping with move-ins and care coordination. Many families describe a warm, family-like atmosphere, clean renovated spaces, a robust activities program (Sue Hill often cited), and successful short-term rehab outcomes.
Conversely, the negative reports are substantive and recurring. The dominant concern is chronic understaffing resulting in long call-light wait times, ignored alarms, delays in medication and therapy, and inconsistent coverage — especially on weekends and nights. Several reviews recount being left in wheelchairs or beds for hours without assistance, missed or delayed pain medications, and temporary or float staff unfamiliar with residents’ needs. These staffing constraints appear to amplify other problems: inconsistent wound care and dressing changes, missed monitoring (blood sugars, temperatures), failure to follow feeding-tube or catheter protocols, and delayed responses to falls. Multiple reviewers report severe incidents — infections, complications after falls, and at least one reviewer linking an infection to a death — which raise red flags about patient safety and medical oversight in specific cases.
Safety and property concerns appear repeatedly. Reports include theft of mail, packages, and personal belongings; laundry losses; and even allegations of dangerous items near patient areas (a reviewer mentioned rat poison under a bed). Such accounts are compounded by reports of poor communication from staff and leadership: families say they were not notified after falls or adverse events, that records were difficult to access, and that office staff sometimes do not return calls or avoid communicating. Several reviews allege management failures — ranging from absence during crises to more serious accusations that management coached staff on how to respond to inspectors and attempted to cover up wrongdoing. These allegations, combined with mentions of police and Adult Protective Services involvement and reviewers considering filing formal complaints, indicate recurring governance and compliance concerns for some families.
Dining and housekeeping impressions are mixed. While a number of reviewers call the facility clean and praise maintenance, others describe unclean areas (dirty rags in meal areas, trash or gloves on the floor) and inconsistent housekeeping across units. Food receives polarized feedback: some residents enjoy meals and report weight gain and good nutrition, while others complain about cold food, small portions, odd-tasting items (e.g., margarine described as off), and diabetic dietary concerns. Weekend meals and staffing in the kitchen also get occasional negative mentions, sometimes tied to overall weekend staffing shortages.
Communication and administrative consistency are problematic in a subset of reviews. Positive anecdotes describe fast appointment scheduling, attentive admissions, and proactive notifications from certain nurses and the DON. However, many reviews recount difficulty reaching staff by phone, long hold times, staff not returning calls, inconsistent care-plan meetings, and failures to coordinate follow-up care. Some reviewers praise new ownership or specific administrative improvements, suggesting variability over time or across leadership teams, but others report management changes that coincided with worsening responsiveness and staff morale.
A clear pattern emerges of a capable clinical core and strong therapy outcomes coexisting with operational and safety weaknesses driven largely by staffing variability and leadership inconsistencies. For short-term rehab patients many reviewers recommend Ridgmar Medical Lodge because of strong therapy, dedicated clinicians, and successful recoveries. For long-term placement or medically complex patients, the reviews are more mixed: some families are very satisfied and confident in long-term care, while others report persistent neglect, serious safety incidents, and lack of appropriate oversight.
Bottom line: Ridgmar Medical Lodge demonstrates significant strengths in rehabilitation, certain nursing and therapy staff, facility appearance, and activities — making it a strong option for many short-term rehab stays. However, recurring and serious complaints about understaffing, slow response to call lights and medical needs, inconsistent wound and tube care, theft and property safety, and management/communication failures are important red flags. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive experiences (notably therapy and some standout staff) against the reported safety and responsiveness issues, ask specific questions about staffing levels on the desired unit and shifts, verify incident reporting and family-notification procedures, and consider close monitoring during any stay — especially for medically complex or long-term care recipients.
