Overall sentiment in the reviews for Westwood Center is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise individual staff members and certain services, while an equally significant cohort reports systemic problems with care quality, cleanliness, responsiveness, and management. Many families and residents describe compassionate, attentive caregivers, skilled rehabilitation support, and useful on-site amenities — these positives are often cited as reasons a portion of residents are satisfied or even enthusiastic about the facility. At the same time, recurring and serious concerns appear across many reviews, indicating uneven performance and possibly systemic staffing and management failures.
Care quality and responsiveness are the most frequently cited issues. Numerous reviews recount long wait times for call lights and assistance with toileting or bathing; some incidents are severe — residents left in urine or feces, bedpans left unemptied for long stretches, and delays in providing water and medications. Several reviewers reported medication errors or delays of hours, medical test results taking many days, infrequent physician visits, and inadequate monitoring of vitals. These reports include accounts of dehydration requiring ER care, untreated pressure wounds, and instances where a resident nearly died or required emergency transfer. Although some families specifically praise nursing or rehab staff for excellent care, the pattern across many reviews indicates inconsistent clinical oversight and responsiveness.
Staffing, professionalism, and management emerge as root themes linked to many negative experiences. Multiple reviews state the facility is short-staffed, causing burnout and high turnover, which reviewers connect to long waits, missed care tasks, and inconsistent service. Unprofessional behaviors — CNAs or desk staff on their phones, rude interactions, and even confrontational or hateful nursing staff — were reported alongside praise for specific compassionate employees. Several posts call out management issues: poor communication, inconsistent or contradictory information, denial or lying about incidents, ignored complaints, lost belongings, and inadequate incident response. These governance failures magnify the clinical and housekeeping problems and erode families’ trust.
Cleanliness, infection control, and facility condition are another area of mixed reports but with serious concerns. While some reviewers say rooms are clean and the facility secure, many others describe squalid conditions: foul smells (feces/urine), dirty or sticky floors, bedding soiled or unchanged, roaches, blocked sinks, and visible neglect following bathroom accidents. Multiple reviews call the interior outdated and in need of renovation — worn carpets, a hospital-like look, and plumbing/housekeeping issues are regularly mentioned. Infection-control lapses and outbreak lockdowns (e.g., flu) are also noted; some families praised the facility’s COVID management (daily Zooms and communication), suggesting variable performance over time or across departments.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers appreciate personalized meal options, warm and tasty dishes, and helpful dietary accommodations ordered by physicians. Conversely, numerous complaints describe cold meals, small portions, unappetizing offerings (examples like a thin fish sandwich and frozen fries), and rude kitchen staff. Activity programming is present — Bingo, movie nights, board games, bridge nights — and in many reports residents engage and enjoy a family-like atmosphere. Still, other reviewers point to low activity levels or inattentive program staff, indicating inconsistency in resident enrichment.
There are pockets of strong praise that families credit with meaningful positive outcomes: social workers or specific staff (named individuals) who coordinated transfers, advocated effectively, improved communication, or helped residents regain appetite and social connection. These accounts emphasize that excellent, dedicated employees exist at Westwood Center and can make a real difference in outcomes. However, those positive experiences coexist with repeated reports of neglect, safety risks, and substandard management, which suggests the quality of a resident’s experience can substantially depend on staffing assignments, shift timing, and the level of oversight in place at any given time.
In summary, Westwood Center presents as a facility with notable strengths in individual caregivers, some clinical and rehabilitative capabilities, and useful amenities — yet it also demonstrates recurring and serious weaknesses in staffing levels, basic caregiving responsiveness, cleanliness, food service, and management transparency. The pattern across reviews suggests inconsistent performance: families should be aware that experiences span from excellent, compassionate care to reports of neglect and unsafe conditions. Those evaluating the facility should probe current staffing ratios, turnover, infection-control and housekeeping processes, medication administration safeguards, recent inspection or deficiency reports, and management’s responsiveness to complaints to assess whether the systemic issues described in many reviews have been addressed.
