Overall sentiment in the reviews is markedly mixed, with clear and consistent praise for the rehabilitation services and certain staff members contrasted by serious, recurring complaints about nursing care, medication management, sanitation, and staffing levels. Many reviewers singled out the therapy team as “top notch” and repeatedly praised individual clinicians and administrative staff for being caring, professional, and responsive. At the same time, an extensive set of criticisms — some alleging neglect or unsafe care — appears often enough to represent systemic concerns rather than isolated incidents.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most polarizing themes. Strengths: multiple reviews specifically commend the facility’s physical therapy/rehab program and staff competence there; families frequently reported good outcomes from therapy and appreciated discharge planning and individualized attention. Weaknesses: numerous reviewers reported medication-related problems (delays, adverse effects, medications they considered ill-advised, and even allegations of altered or falsified medication documentation). Several accounts describe resulting ER visits, hospital readmissions, or worse. There are also recurring reports of misdiagnosis (including dementia), adverse drug effects, and poor clinical judgment by some physicians. These patterns raise important safety concerns that families repeatedly noted.
Staffing, management, and communication form another consistent cluster of praise and criticism. Positive mentions: some families felt administration and certain named staff (Corey, Kevin, Jaymie and others) were professional, caring, and went “above and beyond.” Negative and recurring issues: many reviews describe chronic understaffing, especially on weekends and holidays, high staff turnover, and heavy reliance on agency/travel nurses. The result, reviewers say, is inconsistent care — CNAs and nurses who appear overwhelmed or inattentive, call lights ignored, missed showers, missed medication times, and occasional unprofessional behavior (refusing family requests, arguing, or sharing private information). Communication lapses — unanswered calls, missed callbacks, spotty updates — compound families’ frustrations and contribute to perceptions of mismanagement.
Cleanliness, equipment, and personal care are described inconsistently across reviews. Several families report a clean, well-maintained, pleasant-smelling facility and praise housekeeping. Conversely, other reviewers describe troubling hygiene lapses: urine odors in bathrooms, urine-soaked or dirty sheets, sticky floors, residents left in hospital gowns, lack of bathing for days, and inadequate catheter/Foley care (including overflowing or unemptied bags and catheters left beyond their recommended date). Equipment issues such as broken beds and slow repair resolution were also noted, sometimes forcing families to supply mattresses. These conflicting accounts suggest variability in standards of care or uneven performance between shifts and staff teams.
Dining and daily life receive mixed feedback. Some residents and families praised meals as above average and found the facility accommodating, while others described the food as inedible, gruel-like, or repeatedly insufficient (food running out, self-serve issues). Specific dietary concerns include lack of accommodation for gluten-free diets and meal choices that worsen blood sugar for diabetics (reports of sugary or inappropriate meals). On services and amenities, several reviewers appreciated on-site grooming, good TV options, and an active activity program; faith-based programming (Bible study, gospel music, prayer time) is a notable strength for families seeking a religious environment.
Safety and property concerns appear frequently enough to merit attention. Multiple reviewers reported clothing disappearing or laundry not being done, residents’ belongings lost, and lack of adequate supervision that required family vigilance. In severe accounts, reviewers describe neglect culminating in harm or death, and one or more reports reference state-level investigation and hospital transfers. While some of these may be outlier or extreme cases, their recurrence across different reviews indicates that families perceived real safety lapses rather than single isolated events.
In summary, River Hills Health and Rehabilitation presents a complex picture: exceptional rehabilitation services and several highly praised staff and administrators, set alongside recurring and serious concerns about nursing consistency, medication safety, hygiene, and staffing. The most frequent and actionable themes are understaffing (particularly on weekends/holidays), inconsistent nurse/CNA performance, medication-management problems, and variable cleanliness. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong therapy and faith-based programming positives against the reported clinical and operational risks. If considering this facility, reviewers’ comments suggest verifying current staffing levels and nurse-to-resident ratios, asking about medication safety protocols and recent state survey history, confirming weekend therapy availability, and discussing laundry and catheter care practices. The reviews indicate that experiences can vary significantly by unit, shift, and individual staff, so in-person visits and specific, up-to-date questions are important when evaluating the facility.
