Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers praise Rocky Mountain Care - The Lodge for its striking, modern physical plant, clean and welcoming interiors, mountain views, and ‘‘hotel-like’’ atmosphere. The facility’s therapy services (physical, occupational, and speech) are repeatedly highlighted as outstanding and a major strength, with several reviewers calling therapy ‘‘second-to-none’’ or ‘‘one of the best in the state.’’ Numerous accounts describe compassionate, kind, and dedicated staff—CNAs, nurses, therapists, housekeeping, kitchen staff, and shuttle drivers—who create a family-like environment, provide excellent medical support for some residents, and contribute to positive recovery experiences and high satisfaction. Some reviewers also note responsive administration and examples where management listened to concerns and implemented improvements.
Contrasting sharply with those positive reports are multiple, serious allegations of neglect and unsafe care. Several reviews describe unattended needs, unanswered call lights for hours, delayed or missed medications, and situations where nurses or staff failed to enter rooms for long periods. There are multiple specific reports of feeding tube malfunction and subsequent emergency room transfers, as well as accounts of discharge notices given with only five days’ notice and little advance planning. A number of reviewers attribute hospital visits, worsening conditions, or even deaths to failures in care. These reports raise safety and quality-of-care concerns that are consistent across several independent summaries.
Staffing and management emerge as central drivers of the variable experiences. A frequent theme is understaffing—particularly during daytime shifts—resulting in overworked and underpaid staff, very high nurse-to-patient ratios (one review cites 20:1), and inconsistent delivery of basic care. Positive reviews that praise attentive staff often coexist alongside complaints that ‘‘few’’ CNAs or nurses are able to meet resident needs, forcing families to provide oversight or even feed and bathe loved ones themselves. Some reviewers report that management is poor or inconsistent, while others note management responsiveness when concerns are raised, suggesting uneven leadership or variability between units or time periods.
Facility condition and basic hygiene present a dual picture. Many reviews applaud the facility’s modern design, cleanliness, and attractive common spaces. Yet several serious complaints mention room odors (one reviewer described an outhouse smell), lack of running water in a room for over a week, no showers for extended periods, and failure to change briefs—issues that verge on health-code violations. Exterior maintenance and grounds care are also noted as inconsistent: while the inside may be pristine and new, the outside can appear neglected or overgrown according to some reviewers.
Dining and daily life receive mixed feedback. Activity programs, creative offerings, and an engaging atmosphere (crafts, karaoke, social interaction) receive praise as contributors to resident well-being. At the same time, food quality is a recurrent criticism: reports of cold meals, poor nutrition, a ‘‘fried-food cafe’’ style menu, and meals residents disliked contrast with other reviewers who found the food acceptable. Nutrition quality is a concern when reviewers link poor food to slower healing or resident dissatisfaction.
Communication and discharge planning are additional areas of concern. Multiple reviewers indicate poor communication among staff and with families—late or missing notifications, lack of updates on condition changes, and sudden transfers or discharges without adequate planning. A few reviews say management corrected discharge planning after feedback, but recurring comments suggest this remains an area families should scrutinize closely.
Patterns and takeaways: the most consistent pattern is a wide variability in resident experience. The facility’s environment and therapy programs are commonly lauded, and many families report excellent, respectful care. However, a substantial minority of reviews report serious lapses in basic nursing care and safety—enough to indicate systemic staffing and process issues at times. The divergence suggests that quality may depend heavily on staffing levels, specific shifts or units, management responsiveness, and family involvement.
Recommendations for prospective residents/families based on these reviews: tour the facility in person (at different times of day), ask specifically about nurse-to-patient ratios and daytime staffing, verify protocols for call-light response times and emergency handling, inquire about recent incidents and corrective actions, review discharge planning and notification procedures, and check menus/nutrition offerings. If choosing the facility, plan for regular family oversight early on and monitor hygiene, medication administration, and feeding/therapy schedules closely. The Lodge offers notable clinical strengths and an attractive environment, but the reported safety and staffing concerns mean due diligence and ongoing vigilance are important to ensure consistent, safe, high-quality care.
