Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: reviews describe both strong, compassionate direct care and serious systemic failures that create safety, sanitation, and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reviewers praise individual caregivers, therapists, and certain administrative staff, calling out excellent OT/PT, a highly regarded wound doctor, attentive CNAs, and staff who treat residents with warmth and familiarity. Those positive accounts emphasize rehabilitation progress, personalized attention (nurses knowing residents by name), abundant activities, and an atmosphere in which residents appear well-groomed and social. Several reviewers specifically recommend visiting in person to see the positive aspects and note that for some residents the facility produced meaningful improvements and a supportive environment.
Conversely, a substantial subset of reviews reports severe and recurring problems. Major themes include inadequate staffing levels and overworked employees, leading to unresponsive call lights, delayed or absent assistance, and diminished care quality. There are multiple allegations of neglect and negligence: bedsores, unauthorized medication administration, unsafe drug interactions, soiled bedding, fecal/urine contamination on patients, and infectious incidents (vomiting/diarrhea). Reported safety failures include patient falls resulting in bruising, lack of essential equipment (wheelchairs, bed rails), unsecured building access, and even power outages — all of which are significant red flags for clinical and physical safety.
Facility condition and maintenance are another prominent and mixed theme. Several reviewers describe the building as old, outdated, dilapidated, or unsafe, with specific issues such as exposed wires, missing shower heads, and foul odors in hallways. Others report clean conditions, effective housekeeping, and a home-like atmosphere. This variability suggests inconsistent facility-wide standards or fluctuating maintenance/housekeeping performance depending on unit, shift, or timeframe. Food service likewise receives widely diverging feedback: some describe "home-like" generous portions and well-attended meals, while others report terrible food, cost-cutting substitutions (beans and bread), weekend meal delays, and plates that do not match posted menus. Multiple reviewers noted short-staffed kitchen operations influencing meal quality and consistency.
Management, communication, and professionalism form another divided theme. Positive comments identify honest, professional administrative staff and helpful, friendly receptionists, while negative reports describe biased or unresponsive administration, a director of nursing who appears uninformed, a social worker who was unprofessional, and reception staff with a condescending tone. A few reviewers explicitly characterize management as "money-first" and callous toward resident health. There are reports of theft and poor bedside manners in addition to accounts of staff who behave like family and go above and beyond. This split points to inconsistent leadership, variable staff training or culture, or recent turnover impacting resident experience.
Taken together, the reviews indicate that Martinsville Health and Rehab may deliver very good care for some residents — particularly those benefiting from therapy services or who are cared for by certain compassionate staff members — but that systemic issues create serious risks for others. Recurring critical issues (bedsores, infections, unauthorized medications, falls, sanitation problems, equipment shortages, and understaffing) are particularly concerning and warrant careful scrutiny. The variability of experiences across reviewers suggests that quality may depend heavily on staffing levels, which shifts or units a resident is placed in, and how consistently management enforces standards.
If evaluating this facility, prioritize an in-person visit and targeted questions: observe multiple units and different mealtimes and shifts; ask about current staffing ratios, wound-care protocols, infection-control records, recent citations or state inspection results, and how the facility handles medication administration and emergency power contingencies. Speak directly with therapy staff, nursing leadership, and the wound doctor (if relevant), and ask for documentation of recent quality indicators (pressure injury rates, fall rates, staffing history). Also check family or resident advocacy mechanisms and whether administration is responsive to reported concerns. The mixed reviews show there are meaningful strengths to the facility but also nontrivial safety and quality concerns that should be verified and monitored before making placement decisions.
