Overall sentiment across the reviews for EastView HealthCare & Rehabilitation Center is highly polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility—particularly the rehabilitation teams and many frontline staff—highlighting excellent therapy outcomes, compassionate caregivers, thorough case management, and an active activities program that keeps residents engaged. These positive accounts frequently cite successful discharges with regained mobility, personable and helpful admissions staff, attractive grounds and a welcoming entrance, and long‑tenured employees who foster a family‑like atmosphere. Multiple reviewers specifically named and applauded individual employees (therapy staff, activity director, nurses, and administrators), and many families report attentive day‑shift nursing, clean rooms, and meaningful improvements in residents’ physical function and quality of life.
However, an equally loud and serious set of complaints details systemic problems that raise safety and quality‑of‑care concerns. The most alarming patterns are repeated reports of severe sanitation and hygiene failures—examples include blood and feces on walls, dried feces and urine on bedding, ant infestations, rusty fixtures, and generally unsanitary bathrooms. Several reviews describe neglectful wound care, resulting in bed sores, infections, septic shock, and, in at least some accounts, death. These clinical failures are often linked to medication errors (missed meds, halted anticoagulants, conflicting antibiotic orders, and records discrepancies), delayed or denied transfers to hospitals despite family requests, and poor post‑hospital continuity of care.
Staffing and responsiveness emerge as another major theme. Many reviewers describe long waits for assistance after pushing call lights, toileting and hygiene delays (residents left soiled or in wheelchairs for many hours), and variability between shifts—day shift and core therapy teams frequently praised, while night shift and temporary/part‑time staff are often criticized for inattentiveness or lack of training. Families report poor communication from nursing and administration in some cases, including unresponsiveness to emails, slow procurement of basic supplies or equipment, and confusing or contradictory instructions related to medications and IV treatments. A number of reviewers allege rude, dismissive, or insulting interactions from staff and management, and some describe records or medical documentation being mishandled.
There is a strong, dual narrative about leadership and administration. Several reviews commend engaged administrators, good leadership, and staff who ‘‘go above and beyond,’’ while other reviewers accuse management of incompetence, poor oversight, slow action after serious incidents, and even manipulation of reviews. These conflicting accounts suggest inconsistent operational oversight—areas or units within the facility may be well run, while others suffer from systemic lapses.
Services beyond direct clinical care show mixed results. The rehab and therapy departments are consistently singled out as a major strength—therapists are described as passionate, effective, and responsible for many positive discharges. Activities programming is repeatedly praised for inclusiveness and quality. Dining receives mixed feedback; some reviewers compliment food and the kitchen, but many others describe poor food quality, cold or minimal meals, and difficulty with specialized diets (pureed food complaints appear). Housekeeping and environmental maintenance are likewise inconsistent: numerous reviewers report a clean, fresh facility and attractive decor, while a worrying number cite unsanitary rooms or bathrooms and slow housekeeping response.
Notable specific concerns that recur: medication and treatment inconsistencies (including stopping blood thinners and contradictory antibiotic treatments), serious wound management failures, reports of residents needing to self‑feed or having to wait excessive periods for toileting assistance, missing personal items, lack of bilingual support in some cases, and alleged manipulation of positive reviews. Conversely, notable strengths that recur are the effectiveness of the therapy teams, the commitment of many individual nurses/CNAs and activities staff, and examples of excellent family communication and discharge planning.
Implications for families: the pattern suggests EastView can deliver excellent short‑term rehabilitative care for many patients—particularly via its therapy staff—but long‑term nursing and around‑the‑clock clinical oversight appear inconsistent and tied to staffing and leadership at the unit/shift level. Given the serious nature of some allegations (sanitation failures, wound neglect, medication errors, and delayed hospital transfers), prospective residents and families should be vigilant: verify current state inspection reports, ask specific questions about staffing ratios and night‑shift coverage, request copies of care plans and medication reconciliations, confirm wound‑care protocols, and arrange frequent family checks during extended stays. For short‑term rehab focused on mobility and discharge goals, EastView’s therapy team is frequently praised; for complex nursing needs, families should weigh the mixed reports and monitor care closely.
