The reviews present a highly polarized portrait of The Resort at Texas City. Several reviewers describe very positive experiences: loving, caring and outgoing staff; experienced department leadership; strong teamwork; good therapy outcomes (one review cites 100% range of motion); helpful CNAs (with one praised by name, "Rose"); a caring Director of Nursing; appealing meals; and a lively activities program that made residents feel like family. Multiple accounts emphasize attentive and friendly nurses, prompt resolution of certain issues, and specific incidents in which staff assisted families through difficult situations. A few reviewers also noted a clean facility and absence of urine odor, and one reviewer mentioned that a nurse appropriately called 911 in an emergency.
Counterbalancing these positive reports are numerous serious and recurring complaints. Communication lapses are a frequent theme — families reported poor communication, rooms allegedly lacking phones, and calls not being returned on weekends. There are repeated allegations of misleading claims about therapy progress (promises that residents would stand or walk with a walker that never materialized) and specific instances where mobility aids or basic equipment (wheelchairs) were not provided, forcing families to carry residents from cars into the building. Several reviews describe perceived medical neglect during urgent situations: high fevers, dangerously high blood sugar, and suspected strokes where family members feared staff would not intervene appropriately.
Hygiene and personal care concerns appear repeatedly and are serious in nature. Multiple reviewers reported that residents were not showered, were wearing dirty clothes, experienced rough handling, and in some accounts were subject to outright abuse. Several reviewers described filthy conditions and an ongoing urine smell throughout the facility, plus shortages of incontinence supplies such as diapers and wet wipes. Other complaints allege that frontline staff can be unfriendly, lazy, or neglectful, and that complaints to management were ignored. There are also reports of wandering incidents and situations that reviewers characterized as creating an unsafe environment for vulnerable residents.
Beyond individual negative experiences, some reviews point to systemic or regulatory problems: alleged employee harm incidents, violations of state standards, and negative news coverage. These allegations suggest deeper operational or oversight issues rather than isolated staff misconduct. At the same time, the presence of strongly positive reviews (naming exemplary staff members, praising food, therapy outcomes, and the DON) indicates considerable inconsistency in resident experience. This pattern — very positive reports from some families and very troubling reports from others — suggests variability in care quality that may depend on factors such as specific staff on duty, shifts (weekends were singled out), or unit-level management.
Overall, the most significant patterns are (1) a real strength in individualized, compassionate care from certain staff and successful therapy outcomes for some residents; and (2) recurring, serious complaints about communication breakdowns, neglect of basic hygiene and incontinence needs, unsafe conditions, and potential regulatory or abuse concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of narratives carefully. Given the gravity of the negative allegations, it would be prudent for anyone considering this facility to review state inspection reports, ask for references from current/resident families, request staffing and emergency-protocol information (including weekend coverage), visit at different times of day to assess cleanliness and odor, observe dining and activity periods, and get written confirmation about available mobility aids and personal-care supplies.
