Overall sentiment across these reviews is strongly mixed, with vivid reports at both ends of the spectrum. Many reviewers praise the facility for excellent rehabilitation services, skilled therapists, helpful admissions staff, and a generally attractive, modern building with comfortable common areas. At the same time, there are numerous, detailed complaints about nursing care, communication, infection control, food quality, cleanliness, and management responsiveness. The net impression is that residents can have outstanding therapy and supportive interactions with specific staff members, but that experience is inconsistent and can vary greatly by shift, unit, or which staff are on duty.
Care quality and clinical concerns appear to be one of the central dividing lines. Multiple reviews report exceptional PT/OT and strong rehab outcomes, sometimes described as the best in the region, with therapists who help residents regain mobility and independence. Several reviewers credit named nurses and aides with compassionate, attentive care and describe dignified end-of-life or hospice services. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews recount serious medical lapses: delayed or missed blood sugar checks, inadequate wound care, failure to address diabetes properly, dehydration that led to hospitalization, and delayed oxygen or other important studies. There are repeated accounts of promised therapy not being provided or significant delays in PT evaluation. These clinical care failures are often described as occurring when staffing is thin or when family is not present to advocate.
Staffing, communication, and accountability are another recurrent theme. Many reviewers describe long waits for help, unanswered calls at the nurses station, missed or late medications, and dismissive or rude staff on certain shifts. Families frequently report poor communication from leadership and clinical staff, including unreturned calls from the director of nursing or administrators and inconsistent updates about resident status. At the same time, several reviewers highlight responsive administrative leadership and staff who are cooperative and willing to collaborate with families. This contrast suggests substantial variability across shifts and personnel: some frontline staff and managers are praised for being proactive and compassionate, while others are criticized for being unresponsive, mean, or disengaged. Multiple reviewers also mentioned a culture of finger-pointing and lack of accountability among staff when problems arise.
Facility, housekeeping, and infection control feedback is strongly mixed. Numerous reviewers compliment the facility itself as new, clean, and hotel-like, with a large lobby, fireplace, and attractive furnishings. Housekeeping and laundry services are praised in many accounts. However, other reviewers describe serious cleanliness and pest issues, including reports of cockroaches in dining areas and bedbugs in rooms, filthy floors, overflowing or dirty trash containers, and foodborne illness concerns such as possible food poisoning with vomiting. COVID-19 management also drew polarized comments: some reviewers acknowledge diligent efforts by staff and note external constraints such as federal supply or training limitations, while others criticize subpar quarantine, testing, and outbreak response that coincided with resident deaths.
Dining and nutrition are another area of sharp division. Several reviewers call the food absolutely appalling, monotonous, or even associated with food poisoning, while others praise the kitchen staff, cite tasty meals, note variety, and single out items like cookies and ice cream. This split could reflect differences between short-stay rehab dining and long-term dining, variability by menu cycle, or inconsistencies in kitchen staffing or oversight.
Management and organizational issues recur as a source of dissatisfaction. Specific complaints include supervisors failing to relay admissions or duty changes to floor staff, insufficient supplies on the units, long delays for administrative or clinical responses, and a perception that management prioritizes census and revenue over individualized care. Conversely, several reviews name administrators and managers who are highly responsive, helpful, and effective at resolving concerns, indicating uneven leadership experiences across reviewers. Some reviewers explicitly cite a sense that quality improves when families are very involved, implying that consistent oversight by facility leadership may be variable.
Patterns worth noting for prospective families: the facility appears to offer high-quality rehabilitation and has many staff members who are capable and compassionate. Those outcomes seem most consistent for short-term rehab stays where therapy is a primary focus. For long-term nursing care or medically complex patients, there are repeated reports of unsafe lapses, especially related to hydration, diabetes management, wound care, medication timing, and cleanliness. The reviews suggest that outcomes and day-to-day experience depend heavily on specific staff members and staffing levels. If considering this facility, it would be prudent to ask detailed, shift-specific questions about nurse staffing ratios, wound and diabetes protocols, how the facility handles therapy scheduling and follow-up, pest control measures, and communication practices with families. Also ask how the facility responded to past COVID outbreaks and what changes were implemented.
In summary, Ashton Medical Lodge receives frequent high praise for its rehabilitation program, certain compassionate and skilled staff, and attractive physical environment. At the same time, there are repeatedly reported systemic problems with staffing, communication, medical oversight, infection control, food quality, and cleanliness that have led to serious adverse events for some residents. The reviews paint a picture of a facility with pockets of excellence that coexist with serious risk areas. Families considering this facility should weigh the strong therapy capabilities and some exemplary staff against the reported inconsistencies in clinical care and operational reliability, and should seek specific assurances and documentation about policies, staffing, and quality improvement efforts before making placement decisions.
