The reviews for Waterton Plaza at Cowhorn Creek are highly mixed, with both strongly positive and strongly negative accounts that create a polarized overall picture. Several families and residents describe the facility as clean, well-kept, and staffed by caring, conscientious professionals. These reviewers specifically praise the nursing and rehabilitation care they or their loved ones received, note consistent monitoring of conditions, and express confidence in the Director of Nursing and Administrator, sometimes describing them as compassionate and hands-on. Multiple comments highlight staff friendliness, residents being kept neat, and an overall sense of pride in the facility from some employees and visitors.
Counterbalancing those positive experiences are numerous, serious complaints that indicate significant variability in care and operations. A recurring theme is poor staff responsiveness: unanswered call buttons, long waits for assistance, and apparent disinterest from some caregivers. Several reviews describe instances of neglect or inadequate response to emergencies — notably falls (including a report of a resident falling out of bed), delayed or absent assistance afterward, and in at least one case, a resident’s condition worsened and later involved hospice. These safety-related anecdotes are among the most alarming and indicate potential gaps in supervision, staffing levels, or response protocols.
Dignity and basic care concerns appear repeatedly. Multiple reviewers reported privacy violations (garments removed without proper coverage, curtains not drawn), feeding and nutrition problems (residents hand-fed or not provided nutrition supplements like Ensure when unable to eat), and medication handling issues (allegations that meds were removed). There are also reports suggesting pressure to discharge residents in ways that align with Medicare/Medicaid timelines rather than clinical readiness. Together these patterns point to systemic problems in resident-centered care practices for some shifts or units.
Infection control and housekeeping present another divided picture. While some reviewers call the facility clean and pleasant, others allege poor housekeeping — including roaches in a resident’s room — and cite a COVID outbreak affecting many residents with at least one resulting death. Such contradictions suggest inconsistent standards or variability across units, rooms, or times, and raise concerns about oversight of environmental services and infection prevention protocols.
Rehabilitation and recovery services also receive mixed feedback. Some families report excellent rehab care and attentive staff who provide meaningful improvement and monitoring, while others describe horrible recovery services and poor follow-through that hampered recovery. Activities and social programming are similarly inconsistent: a few reviewers note poor, under-resourced activity offerings, whereas others do not report problems in this area. Transportation and emergency response logistics were criticized in at least one incident where a resident was transported by van rather than ambulance, and there is mention of a state-level report and unclear recovery prognoses, which underline potential regulatory or quality-of-care investigations.
Management and culture emerge as a dividing line in the reviews. Positive comments single out the DON and Administrator as compassionate and effective, but negative reviews frequently accuse management and some staff of being money-focused, uninterested in resident wellbeing, or tolerating disrespectful behavior (including CNA disrespect and staff joking about residents). This dichotomy suggests inconsistent leadership impact across shifts or departments, or that local management successes have not fully translated into uniformly high-quality, accountable care practices throughout the facility.
Overall, the pattern in these reviews is one of significant variability: pockets of excellent, attentive care and leadership are offset by troubling reports of neglect, dignity violations, infection-control lapses, and poor responsiveness. For prospective residents or families this means the facility may provide very good care in some circumstances but also carries documented, serious risks that merit follow-up. Specific due diligence steps would include asking about current staffing levels and turnover, reviewing recent state inspection reports, inquiring about infection-control measures and outcomes of any outbreaks, asking for specifics about response times and call-button testing, confirming feeding and medication policies, and requesting references from recent families whose experiences match the circumstances similar to the prospective resident’s needs.
