The reviews of Crestwood Rehabilitation and Nursing are highly polarized, with a substantial number of reviewers reporting excellent care and many others describing serious lapses in safety, communication, and basic caregiving. Positive accounts emphasize compassionate, helpful staff; strong therapy services (especially physical therapy); a clean, odor-free environment; pleasant atmosphere; and meaningful small gestures that brighten residents’ days. Several reviewers specifically highlighted quick discharges, passing state surveys, favorable Medicare ratings, and an overall respectful approach to patients. In these accounts, management is described as supportive and staff as cheerful and fully staffed.
Contrasting sharply with the positive feedback are numerous reports of neglect, inadequate medical attention, and alarming clinical failures. Multiple reviewers alleged that pain and anxiety were not addressed, that staff failed to recognize or act on life-threatening conditions (including claims of unrecognized pneumothorax and sepsis), and that there was an absence of timely physician involvement—culminating, in some accounts, in patient death. Recurrent themes include long call-button response times, unresponsive phone lines and front desk, lost laundry, cold food, and inability to contact staff during urgent events (for example, during a low-blood-sugar episode). These failures combine to create a perception among many reviewers of an unsafe and unpredictable care environment.
Operational and staffing concerns are frequent and consistent across negative reviews. Many reviewers cite short-staffing, high turnover, and reports of only a couple of nurses on duty at times. These staffing issues are linked in reviews to delayed assistance, medication and dressing/ wound-care problems, residents left unattended in hallways, and poor attention to hygiene and comfort (for instance, residents left not kept warm or without adequate bedding). Cleanliness reports are mixed: while some reviewers praise a clean, odorless facility, many others describe filthy rooms, strong odors, bare rubber mattresses, and overall poor housekeeping. The coexistence of these contradictory assessments suggests variability in standards between units, shifts, or specific resident experiences.
Communication and management practices receive mixed reviews as well. Positive reviewers praise accommodating management and respectful treatment of residents, yet others describe neglectful or defensive management, lack of follow-up or apology after incidents, fear of retaliation among family members, and poor responsiveness to complaints. Several reviews mention problematic administrative systems—voicemail and phone lines that do not work reliably, difficulty contacting the facility via email or website, and billing disputes such as unexpected charges after insurance. There are also serious allegations in some reviews of staff misconduct: theft of resident property, inappropriate disclosure about a nurse’s mental health, discriminatory termination (pregnancy-related), and reports of rude or abusive staff members.
Therapy and activities are an area of relative strength in many reviews. Physical therapy is repeatedly praised as fabulous or very good, and the presence of books, puzzles, and small gestures by staff are noted as positive quality-of-life contributors. Dining receives mixed feedback: while some reviewers report good food, multiple negative comments center on cold meals and inconsistent culinary quality.
Overall patterns: the reviews suggest a bifurcated reputation—some patients and families experience high-quality, compassionate care with good therapy, clean surroundings, and supportive staff, while others encounter serious lapses that impact clinical safety, dignity, and communication. The most significant risks raised by reviewers are medical neglect (including failures to recognize urgent conditions), inconsistent staffing and responsiveness, cleanliness and hygiene concerns, and administrative/communication failures. These patterns indicate variability in care quality that may depend on unit/shift staffing, specific personnel, or timing.
Implications for families and decision-makers: given the pronounced divergence in experiences, prospective residents and their families should seek specific, up-to-date information when evaluating Crestwood. Important lines of inquiry include current staffing ratios (nurse and CNA coverage by shift), response times to call buttons, protocols for physician involvement and escalation for suspected sepsis or respiratory compromise, medication and wound-care procedures, security and property safeguards, complaint/incident response and follow-up policies, and recent inspection or survey results. Visiting unannounced, observing multiple shifts if possible, and asking for references from recent families with similar care needs may help clarify whether the positive or negative patterns are more likely to apply to a particular prospective resident’s stay.
In summary, the reviews present a facility with notable strengths—especially in therapy services and in accounts of compassionate staff—but also with recurrent, serious concerns about medical safety, staffing, cleanliness, communication, and management responsiveness. The mixed nature of the feedback underscores the need for careful, individualized assessment rather than relying exclusively on overall ratings.
