Overall sentiment in these reviews is sharply divided: multiple reviewers describe outstanding, compassionate care, excellent therapy services, and home-like dining, while other reviewers report severe neglect, poor sanitation, abusive or indifferent staff behavior, and troubling management practices. The volume and intensity of both positive and negative comments suggest either substantial variability across time, units, or shifts — or meaningful changes in leadership and operations that have impacted resident experience for better or worse.
Care quality: Several reviewers praise personal care, attentive CNAs, and therapeutic progress. Names like Ashley (CNA) and social worker Felisha/Felicia Walton are repeatedly singled out for compassionate, knowledgeable, and resident-focused service. Conversely, other reviews allege serious lapses: residents left soaked in urine, diapers unchanged for extended periods, beds without covers or pillows, and missed physical therapy sessions. There are extremely serious allegations of over-sedation and chemical restraint, including claims that administration hindered efforts to taper sedatives. Multiple accounts describe abrupt or unexplained discharges — sometimes framed as referrals to behavioral hospitals — that families felt were premeditated or poorly justified.
Staff and interpersonal dynamics: Reviews repeatedly reference both highly positive and highly negative staff interactions. On the positive side, many reviewers emphasize friendly, helpful, and hardworking staff who make residents feel like family, with several mentions of staff pride and above-and-beyond service. On the negative side, there are repeated reports of rude, disrespectful, and even abusive behavior from nursing staff and techs, poor interpersonal skills, and refusal to assist or accept volunteers. Communication problems are a prominent thread: unanswered phone calls, slow door responses, and inadequate updates to families are cited as ongoing frustrations.
Therapy and activities: Therapy services are consistently a strong point in many reviews. The facility is described as having state-of-the-art therapy equipment, onsite therapists, and a full complement of physical, occupational, and speech therapy. Several families credit therapy with meaningful recovery. However, some reviews report missed therapy sessions or that the facility could not provide one-on-one care when needed, particularly in cases that led to discharge.
Dining and atmosphere: Dining receives largely positive feedback from numerous reviewers: exquisite food, daily menu changes, alternate menu options, and high meal satisfaction are noted. Several reviewers describe a home-like, peaceful atmosphere and friendly residents, and some long-term residents say they plan to stay. Yet there are isolated complaints about meals being cold and general inconsistencies that mirror the broader variability seen across other categories.
Facility condition and safety: There is a stark contrast in reports about facility cleanliness and maintenance. Multiple reviewers describe a clean facility under new management, with pleasant outdoor areas and a tidy interior. In contrast, other reviewers report very dirty rooms, floors strewn with paper, empty or soiled beds, pests (rats and roaches), leaking walls, overcrowded rooms, and malfunctioning air conditioning. These descriptions raise significant safety and regulatory concerns. One reviewer explicitly urged inspection by authorities, and another mentioned a COVID case in the facility, amplifying infection control worries.
Management, consistency, and patterns: A recurring theme is inconsistency. Several reviewers praise new management (Deon named) and describe marked improvements in cleanliness, trust, and staff morale. Others accuse administration of being untrustworthy, making empty promises, or mishandling difficult situations such as medication changes and discharges. Fear of retaliation and disputed ratings indicate strained relationships between some families and management. The mixed reports suggest either substantial turnover and operational change or uneven implementation of policies across units or shifts.
Notable personnel and reputational drivers: The social worker Felisha/Felicia Walton receives repeated praise and appears to be a major positive influence on family perceptions. Ashley (a CNA) and Deon (cited as new management) are also named as contributors to positive experiences. These individual endorsements contrast with more general criticisms of anonymous nursing staff and certain administrators.
Conclusions and implications: The reviews portray a facility with the potential to deliver high-quality, family-centered care — especially in therapy and dining — but also with reports of serious lapses in basic nursing care, sanitation, and communication. The polarized feedback suggests families and prospective residents should verify the facility's current status before placement: check the timing of reviews (to determine whether improvements under new management are recent), request the latest inspection and staffing reports, tour resident rooms and dining areas in person, ask about infection control and sedative-management policies, and get named staff contacts (such as Felisha) when possible.
In short, Westridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center appears to offer exemplary services to some residents, particularly around therapy and certain compassionate staff members, while other accounts raise severe concerns about neglect, facility condition, and management decisions. The pattern indicates meaningful variability; prospective families should seek up-to-date, on-site verification and direct conversations with current residents and staff to determine whether the positive or negative patterns apply today.
