Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with a clear pattern of strong interpersonal and programmatic positives alongside serious operational and clinical concerns. Multiple reviewers praise the compassion and attentiveness of many staff members, highlight effective leadership from the administrator (named Shannon), and report that management is responsive and willing to listen to feedback. At the same time, several reviews raise sharply negative issues—ranging from paperwork and follow‑up failures to medication errors and allegations of abuse—that require careful consideration by prospective residents and families.
Care quality and clinical concerns are a central theme. On the positive side, reviewers note that skilled nursing services are available and that many residents’ needs are met. However, there are specific and serious complaints: lost discharge paperwork, missed surgeon follow‑ups, medication issues that reportedly contributed to uncontrolled diabetes, and a sense that staff do not consistently encourage mobility. These problems suggest variability in clinical oversight and follow‑through. The combination of missed documentation and follow‑up appointments is particularly concerning because it directly affects continuity of care. One review also notes a patient declined transfer, implying disagreement about appropriate clinical decisions in at least one case.
Staff behavior and professionalism show a wide range. Numerous reviews praise individual staff members for being friendly, compassionate, and informative—several say staff are wonderful, supportive, and attentive. The activities team, and specifically a long‑tenured staff member named Ben who loves music, receives strong, repeated praise for engaging residents and improving socialization and quality of life. Admissions personnel are also called out as helpful. Conversely, there are troubling accounts of unprofessional conduct: an instance of a staff member being yelled at in front of residents and coworkers, reports of embarrassing or disrespectful communication, and one review that labels the facility “horrible” and alleges abuse. These contrasting descriptions point to inconsistent staff training or culture: some employees clearly provide excellent, compassionate care, while others have behaved in ways that undermine resident dignity and trust.
Management and responsiveness appear to be a relative strength but with limits. Multiple reviewers mention the administrator’s leadership and responsive management—cited as listening to feedback and committed to improvement. This indicates that complaints can be heard and that leadership is visible. Nevertheless, operational problems such as lost paperwork and inconsistent follow‑up indicate gaps in processes and quality control. Staffing limitations were also mentioned, which can strain even well‑led teams and contribute to monitoring failures, medication lapses, and cleanliness issues. Several reviewers suggest the facility is working toward improvement, but the snapshots provided show ongoing variability.
Facilities, cleanliness, and accommodations are described as functional but in need of improvement. Rooms are characterized as typical and some share bathrooms; this is a neutral to negative point for families preferring private accommodations. Cleanliness issues are explicitly noted in reviews, which is an important practical concern in any nursing and rehabilitation setting. Activities and dining receive more uniformly positive comments: residents reportedly enjoy activities, music programs, and socialization opportunities, and food was described as “loved” by multiple reviewers. These aspects contribute strongly to day‑to‑day quality of life for residents.
Patterns and overall takeaways: the strongest and most frequent positives are compassionate individual staff members, an engaging activities program (notably Ben), supportive admissions staff, and visible leadership that claims responsiveness. The most serious and consequential negatives are inconsistent clinical oversight (missed follow‑ups, medication problems, uncontrolled chronic conditions), operational failures (lost paperwork), staffing shortages, cleanliness concerns, and isolated but impactful unprofessional or abusive behavior. These negatives are significant because they affect safety and clinical outcomes, not just comfort.
Recommendations for readers: weigh the facility’s evident strengths in social programming, individual compassionate caregivers, and engaged leadership against the reported variability in clinical processes and professionalism. If considering Crescent Manor, ask specific questions about medication management protocols, discharge and follow‑up procedures, staffing ratios, infection‑control and housekeeping practices, and how complaints or incidents are investigated and resolved. Observe staff interactions with residents in person, request recent quality or inspection reports, check references from current families when possible, and ask management how they have addressed the specific issues noted (lost paperwork, missed follow‑ups, and any substantiated reports of unprofessional conduct). For the facility, priorities appear to be strengthening clinical oversight and documentation, improving staff training on professional conduct and communication, addressing staffing and cleanliness gaps, and continuing to build on the clear strengths in activities and compassionate caregiving.
