Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many families report excellent care, compassionate staff, strong therapy outcomes, and a lively, home-like community, while an alarming number of other reports describe poor hygiene, serious safety incidents, negligent care, and unresponsive or rude administration. The facility appears to produce consistently positive experiences for some residents — especially in areas such as rehabilitation, memory care, and social programming — but also repeated, severe negative experiences for others. This divergence is a central theme in the reviews.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Several reviews praise the clinical and rehabilitation teams, noting effective therapy that led to regained mobility, successful ventilator weaning experiences, and attentive dementia care. Families recount compassionate nursing, timely interventions, and good medical oversight in these positive accounts. In contrast, multiple reviews describe critical clinical failures: falls (including a fall in the shower), negligence that allegedly resulted in serious infection and eventual leg amputation, premature returns from hospital, and cases where residents were not showered, assisted to the bathroom, or fed. Medication management is another inconsistent area — some reviewers say medications are tracked and physician checkups are regular, while others report medications not being approved, long waits for drugs, or medications not being given.
Staff and communication: Staff behavior and communication are major, highly variable themes. Many reviews describe warm, upbeat, family-like staff who introduce themselves, provide frequent updates to families, offer compassionate social work and hospice coordination, and even attend resident funerals — all indicators of a relational, resident-centered approach in parts of the facility. Conversely, other reviewers report impersonal or uncaring staff, employees lacking knowledge of policies, incompetence, rude or dismissive administrators, and poor phone responsiveness (automated hangups). Several reviewers specifically call out the administrative team, liaison, or owners as unhelpful, rude, or profit-driven, and some families say transfers were blocked or needs deprioritized due to money/administrative issues.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Positive commentary highlights a clean, pleasant building with on-site amenities like a beauty salon and resident pets that contribute to a homelike atmosphere. Many residents are described as content and engaged in activities. However, there are strong and repeated complaints about cleanliness and maintenance from other reviewers: rooms arriving unready, bathrooms smelling as if they haven't been cleaned, toilets not flushing, urine odors, roaches (including reports of roaches in food), leaking windows and water issues, and general malodors. These facility and housekeeping issues are significant because they relate directly to infection control and resident dignity.
Activities, social life, and amenities: Multiple reviews emphasize an active schedule of activities, social opportunities leading to many friends, pet visits, and the convenience of on-site services such as a beauty salon. When activities and engagement are present, reviewers often describe the place as lively and family-like. Contrasting reviews, however, claim no activities and describe an otherwise unstimulating environment, suggesting inconsistent programming or differences between units/time periods.
Management, policies, and systemic patterns: Management and administrative issues are a recurring negative thread. Complaints include poor coordination, unhelpful or rude administrative staff, misinformation about Medicaid/medication approvals, breakfast and scheduling delays, automated phone systems that do not connect, and in at least one report an AMA (against medical advice) discharge. Several reviewers link poor care to staff turnover and criticize ownership as greedy or negligent, implying systemic problems that affect frontline care. Positive reviews occasionally highlight helpful administrative support (e.g., an office manager explaining Medicaid processes), indicating again that administrative performance may vary by staff member or time.
Notable patterns and takeaways: The reviews show real extremes — ranging from exemplary, compassionate, clinically effective care to reports of negligence with severe consequences. Recurring positive themes are strong rehabilitation services, compassionate memory care, active programming, and helpful bedside or clinical staff in many cases. Recurring negatives that should raise concern are inconsistent infection control and cleanliness, pest issues, medication and clinical management gaps, safety incidents (falls, inadequate assistance), and adversarial or obstructive administrative behavior. The variation suggests possible inconsistencies across shifts, units, or ownership/management changes, and several reviewers explicitly attribute differences to staff turnover or owner-driven priorities.
Given the breadth of praise and serious criticism, families considering Nesbit Living & Recovery Center should exercise careful due diligence: tour the exact unit a prospective resident would occupy, observe cleanliness and odor, ask for documentation on staffing ratios, infection control practices, recent incident reports, medication administration protocols, and turnover statistics; speak with families of current residents in the same unit; and confirm how transfers and discharge decisions are handled. The reviews indicate that excellent care is attainable there for some residents, but there are also systemic and safety concerns documented by multiple reviewers that merit thorough investigation before placement.
