Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed to polarized: multiple reviewers strongly praise individual caregivers, therapy services, and certain renovated or well-run areas of Hurst Plaza Nursing & Rehab, while other reviewers report serious clinical and operational failures including neglect and alleged abuse. The facility appears to have pockets of excellence—particularly in therapy/rehab and among specific nurses and CNAs—but also persistent and significant problems that have led to poor outcomes for some residents.
Care quality and clinical issues: Several reviews describe high-quality, compassionate bedside care by specific staff members, individualized treatment plans, and professional medical attention that improved resident mood and physical condition. Conversely, other reviews detail alarming clinical failures: untreated or worsening pressure wounds (including a stage 4 sacral wound), denied wound cultures, lack of appropriate medication adjustments, ignored side effects (e.g., Risperidone-related issues, tardive dyskinesia), missing dentures that impaired eating, and bedsores from missed preventive measures (boots not kept on). Multiple reviewers alleged that these clinical lapses led to deterioration of residents’ conditions, and at least one review mentioned discharge with malodorous drainage. There are also direct allegations of abuse and at least one report associating problems with a single controlling nurse managing medications—these raise serious safety flags that prospective families should investigate directly.
Staffing, management and communication: A common theme is understaffing and short staffing, particularly in the Alzheimer’s/dementia unit and during critical times like bathing and mealtimes. Understaffing is tied to slow responses to call lights, residents not being changed or helped to eat, and delayed cleaning, which several reviews link to sores or hygiene problems. Yet many reviewers single out individual staff—CNAs, therapists, nurses, and administrators—as caring, attentive, and professional. This contrast suggests variability: some shifts or teams perform well while others fall short. Management and physician dynamics are also mentioned as problematic in reviews that describe poor communication, difficulty getting concerns addressed, and a sense that the facility sometimes operates at only minimum regulatory compliance. Staff turnover and pay-related attrition are noted, which may contribute to inconsistent care.
Therapy, activities and social environment: Therapy and the rehab unit receive consistently strong praise: reviewers report impressive physical therapy, often available seven days a week, and a rehab team that significantly helped recovery. Social programming is highlighted positively in many reviews—activities, outside outings, a beauty shop, a garden/fish area, transportation bus, and a pleasant cafeteria were mentioned as strengths that improve quality of life. Multiple families said the facility reduced loneliness and provided a supportive atmosphere. These offerings appear to be real assets for many residents, especially those in the therapy or long-term care tracks.
Facilities, cleanliness and dining: Reviews are sharply divided on the physical plant and cleanliness. Several reviewers describe renovated, shiny, secure, and well-kept areas with a pleasant smell and homey atmosphere. Other reviewers report filthy conditions, persistent bad odors, rooms that were not cleaned for extended periods, and poor laundry handling (missing or mixed-up clothing). Dining impressions are also mixed: some praise seasoned, tasty food and a sociable cafeteria area; others report cold meals, poor pureed meal quality, and problems stemming from residents lacking dentures. Overall, these contradictions suggest that cleanliness and meal quality may vary by unit, shift, or over time.
Safety, legal concerns and access: Some reviews raise serious safety and legal concerns—abuse allegations, threats of legal action, and claims that care was unsafe or negligent. One review states the facility denied necessary clinical actions (such as a wound culture) and that the facility may be operating at minimum regulatory standards. COVID-era visitation restrictions and access limitations were also reported by a reviewer as an initial negative factor. These points underscore the need for prospective families to directly verify safety protocols, infection-control policies, and complaint resolution processes.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is variability—Hurst Plaza appears capable of delivering excellent, compassionate care, especially in therapy and when staffed adequately, but also exhibits gaps that in some cases are severe (wound mismanagement, neglect, abuse allegations, poor hygiene). If considering this facility, families should: 1) ask specific questions about staffing ratios and Alzheimer’s-unit staffing; 2) review wound-care protocols and medication management policies; 3) request to see recent inspection and complaint histories; 4) tour multiple units and ask to speak with current families about consistency of care and cleanliness; and 5) monitor early and often if a resident is admitted (wounds, medications, feeding, and hygiene are high-risk areas mentioned repeatedly).
In summary, Hurst Plaza Nursing & Rehab has notable strengths—particularly in therapy services, individual compassionate staff, and social/rehab programming—but also documented and serious weaknesses in staffing consistency, clinical management, hygiene, and communication. These mixed reviews indicate that outcomes are highly dependent on which staff and unit a resident encounters; consequently, thorough on-site evaluation and ongoing oversight are strongly advised for anyone considering placement.
