Overall sentiment is highly polarized: the reviews contain a mix of strong praise and serious criticism, which creates a split picture of Westward Trails Nursing & Rehabilitation. Many reviewers express gratitude for compassionate direct-care staff, positive individual caregivers, engaging activities, and a welcoming environment. At the same time, other reviewers recount troubling experiences involving neglect, administrative dysfunction, theft, and cleanliness problems. These contrasting accounts suggest substantial variability in resident experience that may depend on staff, shift, unit, or timing.
Care quality and staffing emerge as the most frequently mentioned themes. Positive reviews emphasize hardworking, loving, and professional caregivers who treat residents with dignity; multiple reviewers name individual employees (Lily, Courtney, Sindy, Amy) and praise second shift workers for being especially diligent. Conversely, negative feedback centers on short-staffing, rude or unprofessional behavior (particularly cited among morning CNAs and at least one administrator), nurses who are inattentive or distracted (on phones), and even reports of staff disappearing for long periods. Some reviewers go further to allege incompetence with basic medical equipment and insufficient supervision, and some say these problems have prompted state reporting. Multiple comments indicate staff are trying their best with limited resources and active hiring efforts, suggesting staffing shortages may be an underlying driver of inconsistent care.
Facility condition and housekeeping are another area of direct conflict across reviews. Several families describe the environment as very clean, updated, tasteful, and homelike, and others call it beautiful. These positive assessments are counterbalanced by strong, specific complaints that housekeeping is “horrible,” floors are not cleaned, and halls have persistent bad odors. The presence of both glowing and damning remarks about cleanliness points to variability in day-to-day maintenance or differences between units/areas.
Safety and property security are recurring and serious concerns in the negative reviews. Allegations of theft or loss of residents’ personal belongings and missing clothes appear multiple times, and are paired with claims of poor supervision. These issues contribute to distrust among some family members and heighten the perception of risk. Additionally, a subset of reviewers alleges administrative malfeasance such as charging for poor care, submission of misleading or fabricated positive reviews, and even state-level complaints. These are presented as reviewer assertions rather than confirmed facts, but they are significant because they reflect strong dissatisfaction and suspicion among residents’ relatives.
Dining and activities receive more consistent praise than some other areas. Many reviewers note the facility provides lots of activities and engaging programming, and overall food quality is described as very good by several families. There are isolated complaints about breakfast specifics (for example, eggs served cold), but dining seems less contentious than staffing, cleanliness, or administration. Rehab services and nursing care are described positively by several reviewers as well; some call the facility “great” for rehab and nursing, indicating that clinical services meet expectations for certain residents.
Administration and communication present mixed feedback. A number of reviewers specifically commend administrative staff members Jimmy and Tina as supportive; other comments label the front office as horrible, point to inefficiencies (delays obtaining notary services), difficulty finding the phone number, and general administrative disorganization. One name, Rose, is cited by multiple unhappy reviewers as a significant problem. The coexistence of praise for named administrators alongside accusations of incompetence and inefficiency suggests uneven administrative performance and possible variability by shift or individual.
Patterns that emerge across reviews: (1) inconsistency — the facility appears capable of excellent care at times but also produces serious lapses; (2) staffing shortages and turnover likely contribute to uneven experiences and may explain why second shift gets better reviews; (3) praise is often tied to individual staff members, indicating that positive outcomes may rely on particular employees; and (4) safety and administrative trust issues (theft claims, alleged fake reviews, billing complaints) amplify family concerns beyond day-to-day care quality.
Given these mixed and sometimes severe criticisms, prospective residents and families should view reviews as indicators of variability rather than uniform performance. Key steps to better assess the facility would include touring multiple units and visiting at different times/shifts, asking for details about staffing levels and turnover, inquiring about policies and documentation related to residents’ belongings and incident reporting, checking state inspection reports, and asking for references from current families. The reviews show that while many families have positive, even outstanding experiences driven by dedicated staff, others have encountered significant problems related to staffing, cleanliness, administration, and resident safety — making direct verification and careful questioning important before making placement decisions.
