The reviews present a highly mixed and strongly polarized picture of Teague Nursing and Rehabilitation, with a handful of consistent positives buried among numerous serious negative reports. On the positive side, many reviewers single out individual staff members and nurses as warm, attentive, and accommodating. Several accounts describe staff who created a quiet, peaceful environment and made residents feel at home; some families explicitly praised particular employees and credited them with making transitions bearable. These comments indicate that there are committed caregivers on-site who provide compassionate service when staffing and circumstances allow.
However, these positive impressions sit alongside frequent and severe complaints about care quality, staffing levels, and facility management. Multiple reviewers reported that rehabilitation plans were not carried out effectively and that patients declined during or after inpatient stays. Understaffing and reportedly underpaid workers are recurring themes, producing gaps in care and inconsistent service. Specific examples of neglect include delayed or absent nursing response, a head nurse being unavailable when needed, rooms left unclean, urine and improperly stored urinal bags found on the floor, missing medical items (such as a foot holder), and missing personal clothing. These hygiene and oversight failures are linked in the reviews to violations of dignity and residents' rights and even allegations of malnutrition.
Safety and administrative concerns are significant red flags in the reviews. Reported incidents include residents being kicked out after repeated falls, management allegedly threatening to call adult protective services, and at least one account of police involvement. Financial issues were also stressed: one review cited extremely high billing on the order of $20,000 per month. Several reviewers characterized the administrator as uncaring or exhibiting poor judgment. Taken together, these items paint a pattern in which families face harsh financial and administrative pressure while also worrying about clinical safety and accountability.
Facility condition and services such as dining and rehabilitation drew consistent criticism. The building was described by some reviewers as 'dungeon-like' and in poor condition. Dining complaints are specific and repeated: meals described as terrible, served on styrofoam, and associated with dignity concerns. Rehabilitation and therapy services are criticized as inadequate or not properly implemented, which is particularly troubling for a facility that offers nursing and rehab care. Logistical problems (wrong address provided to families, navigation guidance issues, and mail delivery discrepancies) also appear multiple times, suggesting systemic coordination and communication problems.
A notable pattern is the sharp contrast between individual staff performance and systemic failures. Many reviewers explicitly state that there are "a few great staff members" or that "amazing staff" made a difference, while simultaneously reporting pervasive understaffing, poor leadership, and serious lapses in care. This suggests staffing inconsistency, high turnover, or management practices that impair the ability of good employees to deliver consistently safe, high-quality care. Comparisons to a newer facility in Mexia were made, implying that some reviewers believe the facility may be outdated and in need of replacement or significant renovation.
Overall sentiment across the reviews leans toward concern despite pockets of praise. The frequency and severity of allegations — neglect, hygiene failures, threats to call protective services, police involvement, and very high billing — are significant and warrant caution. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports of compassionate staff against the documented systemic issues. When evaluating this facility, it would be prudent to ask direct, specific questions about staffing ratios, turnover, therapy plans and documentation, billing policies and typical monthly costs, incident and eviction policies after falls, results of recent inspections or complaints, cleanliness and infection-control practices, and how administration addresses family concerns. Comparing alternatives (for example the newer facility mentioned in Mexia) and conducting an in-person visit focused on cleanliness, meal service, staff interactions, and administrative transparency would be particularly important given the mixed but troubling themes in these reviews.
