The reviews of Sorrento present a strongly polarized picture: many reviewers praise the rehabilitation services, therapists, and certain individual staff members, while an equally large portion report serious concerns about nursing care, staffing, communication, and basic operations. The most consistent praise centers on the therapy department. Physical and occupational therapists are repeatedly described as excellent, effective, and instrumental in helping patients regain mobility and return home. Several reviewers credited therapy staff (with named individuals highlighted in positive accounts) with thorough, compassionate care that produced measurable recovery. For patients whose primary need was rehab, Sorrento often met or exceeded expectations.
Despite strong therapy-based outcomes, nursing and mid-level clinical care show repeated, significant failures in many reviews. Common and recurring complaints include long or ignored call-light responses, missed or delayed medications, incorrect dosages (including serious overdose events and medication changes by on-call physicians that contradicted specialists), and inadequate bedside nursing care. Multiple reviewers described residents being left in soiled briefs for many hours, missed night medications, and long waits for assistance with basic needs. There are also accounts of heavy sedation or overmedication producing coma-like states. These are not isolated nitpicks but frequent, serious safety concerns that reviewers repeatedly flagged.
Facility-wise, the physical plant receives high marks. Reviewers consistently describe Sorrento as clean, attractive, modern, and amenity-rich — nice lobbies, an on-site salon, and pleasant common areas. For families wanting a comfortable setting for rehab, the facility itself is a major positive. However, that positive façade is undermined by reports of housekeeping lapses (bathrooms not cleaned, carpets smelling of urine after cleaning, shortages of linens and supplies) and maintenance issues (broken beds, raised toilet chairs that are dirty, and unaddressed power outages). These operational gaps contribute to a perception of style over substance among some reviewers.
Dining and activities feedback is mixed. Several reviewers praised food and the activity coordinator, and some noted weekend activities and salon services favorably. Conversely, multiple accounts describe cold meals, dietary restrictions being ignored (e.g., food allergies and low-sodium diets not followed), incorrect meal deliveries, missing utensils, and high-sugar/carbohydrate breakfasts for diabetic patients. Activities are available but inconsistent; some reviewers celebrated engaging programming, while others reported lack of meaningful activities for residents.
Administrative and management problems are another persistent theme. Many reviewers reported poor communication from front-office staff, unreturned calls, and supervisors or directors who were unhelpful or condescending. There are repeated references to understaffing being visible and unaddressed, as well as allegations that the facility acts like a for-profit chain focused on the bottom line rather than patient care. Discharge planning and coordination also receive heavy criticism: families noted inadequate prep for home care, missing caseworkers, oxygen and vendor logistics failing (AeroCare or home oxygen not arranged), and patients being left homebound upon discharge. These coordination failures significantly impacted post-discharge safety and satisfaction for several reviewers.
Safety and professionalism concerns include theft of snacks and clothing, rude or abusive CNAs, staff distracted by phones, and unprofessional body language (eye-rolling) toward families. Several reviewers explicitly described neglectful and unsafe situations — urine-soaked beds, residents left without assessment at admission, and missed critical checks for conditions like diabetes. Conversely, other reviewers praised life-saving attentiveness, quick illness detection, and empathic nurses who provided exemplary care. This inconsistency suggests highly variable staffing quality across shifts and departments.
A pattern emerges around timing and staffing: daytime and therapy staff are most often praised, while nights, weekends, and some evening shifts appear consistently understaffed and problematic. Some reviewers specifically said there is no RN coverage on weekends, few CNAs on certain shifts, and long waits overnight. That variability contributes to polarized experiences — families who had care concentrated during well-staffed day shifts often had positive outcomes, while those who needed care during understaffed periods reported serious problems.
In sum, Sorrento’s strengths are clear: strong, effective rehab services; a modern, attractive facility; and numerous individual staff who provide compassionate, high-quality care. Its weaknesses are equally prominent and sometimes severe: systemic staffing shortages, frequent nursing and medication errors, inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance, poor communication and discharge coordination, and instances of neglect and unprofessional behavior. Prospective patients and families should weigh the consistently strong therapy program and pleasant facility against recurrent safety and staffing concerns. If considering Sorrento, it is advisable to ask specific, shift-based staffing questions, confirm protocols for medication management and discharge planning in writing, meet nursing leadership, and monitor care closely during nights and weekends. Families who have depended heavily on nursing and 24/7 responsiveness reported substantially different experiences than those focused primarily on time-limited rehabilitation services.
