Overall impression: The reviews of Pasadena Post Acute present a deeply polarized and inconsistent picture. A large number of families and patients report exemplary, even outstanding, care: well-coordinated admissions, compassionate nurses and CNAs, an excellent wound care team, and a therapy department that produces measurable functional gains. At the same time, numerous other reviewers describe severe neglect, hygiene failures, medication errors, and safety incidents. This split creates a pattern in which positive reports and glowing individual endorsements coexist with repeated and serious allegations of poor clinical practice and facility mismanagement.
Staff and care quality: A dominant positive theme is the presence of highly dedicated staff members who make a tangible difference to individual patients. Multiple reviewers single out staff by name — Lizzie (marketing/liaison), Wanda (wound/nursing), Stella, Elizabeth/Elizabeth Scott/Carmona, Shannon, Jackie, Misty, and others — praising their compassion, advocacy, and clinical competence. Reviewers credit these individuals with prompt coordination, continuity of care, successful wound healing (including cases where an amputation was averted), and going above and beyond to get patients home. Conversely, many reviews point to understaffing, inconsistent caregiver skill, and episodes when nurses or aides were inattentive or even unprofessional. The net effect is highly variable day-to-day care quality: on some shifts the interdisciplinary team functions collaboratively and proactively; on other shifts reviewers report missed meds, ignored call bells, and staff who are rude or dismissive.
Clinical safety, medication management, and infection control: Several reviewers report serious clinical concerns: medication mishandling (pain meds not given, high-dose sedation allegations, oxygen being denied), missed treatments, untreated infections or wounds, and delayed physician response leading to ER transfers, sepsis, or hospice transitions. There are also multiple hygiene and infection-control complaints — soiled bedding and clothing, smells of urine or feces, roaches, dried vomit, and reports of a filthy COVID area. These incidents are not isolated to minor lapses; reviewers describe outcomes that suggest clinical harm or risk of harm. At least some reviews reference state citations, APS involvement, misreported death, and calls for audits. Together these allegations suggest significant variation in clinical oversight and infection control practices across time and units.
Facilities, renovations, and environment: Many reviewers praise recent renovations: updated paint and flooring, a bright and modern common area, and nicely equipped rooms. Multiple comments describe a welcoming entryway, clean smell, and a home-like atmosphere. Some visitors note state-of-the-art equipment and clean, well-maintained spaces. However, countervailing reviews claim that despite renovations the facility remains filthy in practice for certain residents, with rooms left unsanitary and residents not bathed. These contradictory accounts imply that while the physical plant has improved, operational cleanliness and maintenance may be inconsistent depending on staffing and management oversight.
Therapy, activities, and dining: Therapy services emerge as a clear strength for many: physical therapy and rehab staff are described as effective and instrumental in returning patients to higher levels of independence. Activities — bingo, themed outings like Funny Hat Day, music and sing-alongs — are frequently noted as morale boosters that residents enjoy. Dining feedback is mixed: several reviewers praise fresh-cooked meals, healthy options, and attentive kitchen staff, while others report cold meals or poor food quality. This suggests dining experiences vary by meal service and perhaps by specific wings or staffing levels.
Administration, communication, and coordination: A number of reviewers commend the new administrative team and specific managers for being responsive, accommodating, and family-oriented. Praise centers on smooth transitions, quick issue resolution, and effective discharge planning. Lizzie is repeatedly identified as a standout liaison who coordinates resources and helps families navigate the system. Conversely, communication failures—unanswered phones, long hold times, missing paperwork, and difficulty reaching clinical staff—appear frequently and are tied by reviewers to poorer outcomes. There are also complaints about the attitudes of certain administrative/case management staff (a caseworker named Marlyn is called out as unprofessional by one reviewer), and at least one account of abrupt discharges with no medications and no notice.
Notable patterns and contradictions: The strongest pattern is inconsistency. Many reviews indicate the facility has the “bones” of a good post-acute provider — renovated space, a talented subset of clinicians (notably wound care and therapy), and several deeply committed staff — but that quality is not uniformly applied. Positive experiences often reference specific individuals and newer leadership, whereas negative experiences often point to systemic issues: understaffing, poor mid- to low-level supervision, and clinical or hygienic lapses. The presence of state citations, APS involvement, and calls for audits in the negative reports underlines the seriousness of some complaints.
Implications for families and recommendations: Based on the mixed but frequently extreme reports, families should approach Pasadena Post Acute with due diligence. Positive signs to look for include strong wound care outcomes, an active therapy program, visible administrative responsiveness, named staff advocates (e.g., Lizzie or specific nurses), and recent renovation work. Risk signals include evidence of staffing shortages, unanswered calls, inconsistent medication administration, cleanliness problems, and any reports of state citations or APS investigations. When evaluating this facility, visitors should tour multiple care areas, ask about staffing ratios and infection-control practices, request recent state inspection reports, and identify a point person for communication. If a loved one is already admitted, families should document concerns, escalate through unit management and administration, and consider reporting serious safety incidents to the state survey agency or Adult Protective Services.
Conclusion: Pasadena Post Acute appears to be a facility in transition: renovated spaces, a number of devoted and effective clinicians, and a therapy/wound-care core that can deliver strong outcomes. However, there are frequent and severe negative reports describing neglect, medication and hygiene errors, communication breakdowns, and safety incidents. The overall sentiment is highly polarized — exceptional care and dedication exist alongside troubling allegations of neglect and mismanagement. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strengths against the documented risks, perform a careful tour and review of recent regulatory findings, and maintain active oversight if choosing Pasadena Post Acute for a loved one.
