Overall sentiment is sharply polarized: a substantial number of reviewers describe The Center for Living and Rehabilitation (CLR) as a bright, roomy, attractive facility with many compassionate and skilled staff, especially in therapy and some nursing roles, while an equally significant set of reviews report serious failures in cleanliness, staffing, safety, clinical responsiveness and management. The most common positive themes are strong, individualized rehab services (PT/OT), friendly frontline caregivers, and pleasant public spaces and dining ambiance. Several reviewers credited specific employees and clinicians by name for effective care and communication, and many families noted successful short-term rehab stays that enabled residents to return home.
At the same time, multiple reviewers reported severe and specific shortcomings. Cleanliness and basic hygiene are the single most frequent and emotionally charged negative theme: complaints include pervasive urine or fecal odors, rooms that were not cleaned for days, bed sheets left unchanged for over a week, and maintenance problems (holes in walls, chipped tiles). There are also disturbing accounts of personal items being lost or mishandled (clothing, dentures mixed with another resident's teeth, incorrect glasses), which point to lax processes around resident belongings.
Clinical care and safety concerns recur across many negative reviews. Reported incidents include delayed blood sugar checks (resulting in dangerously high glucose), late or unclear IV and insulin administration, denial of oxygen or fluids, alleged dehydration, and at least one report of a resident being dropped from a Hoyer lift. Reviewers also cited poor infection control practices (a roaming COVID-positive patient in shared spaces) and shared bathrooms that increase exposure risk. These reports suggest inconsistent adherence to care protocols and insufficient oversight in some shifts.
Staffing and consistency of care are major themes. Many reviews explicitly mention staffing shortages and minimal staff presence, with families finding residents unmonitored or alone. Several reviewers contrasted excellent individual employees (day-shift staff, certain nurses and therapists) with other shifts or staff members who were perceived as rude, unwelcoming, or inattentive. This gap creates an unpredictable care environment—some families experience attentive, respectful, and communicative teams while others observe neglect or poor bedside manners.
Management, communication, and coordination also draw mixed feedback. Positive reports highlight clear sign-in directions, helpful admissions, and administrators who spent time on care planning. Negative reports focus on unreturned phone calls (including an allegation that a president-level contact did not respond), poor discharge coordination (delays due to PICC removal or late therapy referrals), and dissatisfaction with specific administrative staff (a named social worker). Multiple reviewers described poor physician responsiveness or absence when urgent issues arose, and some families felt there was a lack of urgency in clinical decision-making.
Dining and activities show variable quality. A few reviews praised the dining-room atmosphere—music well-suited to residents, energetic mealtime engagement, and occasional good holiday meals—while other reviewers reported dietary errors (wrong meals, failure to honor salt-restricted diets) and generally poor menu choices. Activity and enrichment offerings were described as engaging by some families but lacking or minimal by others.
Notable extreme negative events were reported by several reviewers and should be considered carefully by prospective families: alleged end-of-life care failures (no meeting held, limited clinical presence), severe neglect claims (no drinks/cups available, autopsy paperwork described), and at least one account alleging death after heavy medication without appropriate oversight. These accounts are singular but serious and contrast strongly with other reports of respectful and professional end-of-life care.
In summary, CLR elicits strong positive reactions where staffing, therapy and leadership on-site are engaged and attentive; in those cases the facility's physical environment, therapy teams, and day staff provide valuable, family-centered rehabilitation. However, there is a persistent and significant cluster of reviews describing inconsistent cleanliness, staffing shortages, lapses in medication and clinical care, management unresponsiveness, and a few serious safety incidents. The pattern suggests that quality at CLR may vary widely by unit, shift, or specific staff present. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of experiences, ask specific questions about current staffing levels and infection-control practices, request documentation of medication and toileting/linen-change protocols, and tour the unit(s) where their loved one would stay to observe cleanliness, staffing, and mealtime/therapy activity firsthand.
