Overall sentiment in the reviews for The Broadmoor At Creekside Park is mixed but trends strongly toward concern about the quality and consistency of nursing care and operational oversight. Many reviewers praise the physical plant — an attractive, modern building with nice rooms, a pleasant dining area, salon, and strong rehabilitation services (PT/OT/Speech). However, an equally large and vocal set of reviews report significant failures in day-to-day resident care, hygiene, medication safety, and management responsiveness. The result is a facility that may look and feel inviting at first glance but, for many residents and families, does not reliably deliver safe or compassionate clinical care.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most frequently cited problems. Multiple reviews describe chronic understaffing (including nights), heavy reliance on temporary or agency nurses, missed or late medications, medication errors after discharge, and failure to follow physician orders. Serious adverse outcomes are reported: wound/vac leaks, IVs placed or left incorrectly, bedsores, infections (including COVID and MRSA alerts), EMS transfers to hospitals, hospice placement, and at least one reported death. Families described renal-diet violations and inappropriate medication administration (e.g., potassium errors), and instances where pain medications were refused or not given per the Medical Power of Attorney’s directive. These reports point to systemic clinical oversight problems, including a perceived lack of on-site physician involvement.
Nursing aides and support staff performance is described as highly inconsistent. Some reviews highlight phenomenal nurses, caring CNAs, and staff who met needs with compassion and professionalism. Yet an even larger portion of summaries report unresponsive aides, long call-bell waits, patients left in soiled garments or wheelchairs for many hours, infrequent bathing (examples: one bath in two weeks), and general apathy or callous comments from staff. Shift-change communication gaps and high turnover create an environment where continuity of care suffers. Multiple reviewers explicitly cite lack of accountability and blame-shifting among staff, with administration portrayed as unavailable or dismissive when concerns were raised.
Facility cleanliness and environmental issues show a split pattern. Several reviews praise meticulous daily cleaning, no smells, and modern, attractive rooms. In contrast, other reviewers report strong urine odors, unclean bathrooms, wet or stained sheets, ants in rooms, and overall unsanitary conditions. Physical infrastructure complaints also include low water pressure, uncontrolled room temperatures or faulty A/C, and areas needing renovation or technical upgrades. This disparity may reflect variability across units, time periods, or differences between short-term rehab guests and long-term residents.
Dining, nutrition, and related care issues are repeatedly raised. While some guests noted that food looked good and the dining area was pleasant, there are numerous reports of poor meal quality, missed meals or food omissions, inappropriate food selections for special diets, and instances where kitchen staff appeared distracted. Particular concern is raised about renal-diet violations and the provision of potassium or high-sodium items despite medical restrictions. These failures, coupled with medication and wound-care lapses, contributed to clinical deterioration in some residents.
Management, communication, and family engagement are recurring themes of dissatisfaction. Reviewers frequently report difficulty contacting nurses directly (only one published facility number, transfers not answered), unresponsive administration or directors who avoid accountability, and delay or lack of notification to families about clinical changes. Several reviewers described confrontational or unprofessional behavior from managers, threats related to certification processes, and deceptive practices or billing concerns. The combination of poor upward communication and a perceived lack of oversight reinforces family mistrust.
There are notable bright spots: an effective and well-regarded rehabilitation team, specific staff members named positively (social workers, nurses, CNAs, and dining aides), a nice activity director, and areas where housekeeping and room maintenance are excellent. Multiple reviewers explicitly say the PT/OT/Speech teams were instrumental in rehab success and that some nurses provided outstanding care. These positives indicate the facility has capable personnel and programs, but staffing inconsistency and management issues limit reliable, facility-wide performance.
In summary, The Broadmoor At Creekside Park presents a divided picture: a physically appealing facility with strong rehabilitation services and several compassionate, skilled staff members, yet plagued by systemic problems in nursing staffing, medication safety, hygiene, communication, and administrative accountability. The pattern in the reviews suggests high variability in resident experience—some have good outcomes and praise specific teams, while many others report neglect, safety incidents, and poor responsiveness that led to harm or hospitalization. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong rehab reputation and pleasant environment against the frequent reports of clinical lapses, ask detailed questions about nurse staffing levels and medication safety protocols, verify how management handles complaints, and seek names/contacts for direct nurse or unit leadership before choosing placement.
