Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise Lexington Court’s rehabilitation services, therapists, and some caring staff, while a roughly equal number report serious lapses in nursing care, cleanliness, communication, and safety. Positive reviews consistently highlight an effective rehab program, dedicated therapists, good outcomes, pleasant meals, on-site physicians, and an attractive, well-maintained facility in certain areas. Negative reviews concentrate on frontline nursing and housekeeping failures — long call-bell response times, failure to assist residents with toileting and repositioning, soiled briefs, pervasive urine odors, and delayed or missed meals — and report that those failures led to avoidable suffering or worse in some instances.
Care quality and clinical concerns: The most frequent and troubling theme across negative reviews is unreliable nursing and direct care. Multiple reviewers report long or ignored call bells, delays of 20–25 rings on phones, and staff who do not respond promptly to urgent needs. There are specific allegations of basic nursing neglect (not repositioning immobile residents every two hours; leaving residents sitting in feces or urine; being told to urinate in briefs) and reports that serious medical events were missed or not acted upon (a diabetic episode and an infection cited, with one reviewer alleging these played a role in an amputation). A few reviewers go as far as to attribute a death to poor care. These are reviewer claims and indicate patterns of inconsistent clinical vigilance across shifts.
Staff behavior and variability: Reviews describe highly variable staff behavior. Many reviewers name individual CNAs, therapists, and administrative staff as compassionate, attentive, and instrumental to recovery. However, an almost equal number describe rude, distracted, or disrespectful staff — nurses on phones, social workers who do not return calls, a business manager who is disrespectful, and therapists or doctors who lack bedside manner. This inconsistency suggests staffing or leadership issues that allow wide differences in resident experience depending on unit, shift, or specific personnel.
Facilities and cleanliness: Several reviewers report the building is attractive and well maintained in certain areas (particularly rehab units), and some explicitly call the facility clean and pleasant-smelling. Contrasting accounts raise concerns about foul odors (urine), dirty bathrooms, overflowing trash, and irregular housekeeping. These conflicting reports imply uneven housekeeping standards between units or times; some spaces (rehab unit and common areas) appear well cared for while others, including bathrooms and long-term care wings, may be neglected.
Rehabilitation, activities, and dining: Rehabilitation emerges as a core strength in many accounts: reviewers describe thorough therapists, attentive rehab staff, a strong rehab director, plentiful equipment, and excellent outcomes — several call it the best rehab in Richmond. Activities and outings are praised by those satisfied with social programming, and meals are called wonderful or outstanding by multiple reviewers. At the same time, some residents experienced unattended meals or intermittent rehab frequency, indicating variability in service delivery even in these stronger areas.
Management, communication, and safety: Communication and administrative responsiveness are recurring weaknesses. Multiple reviews report long phone hold times, unanswered voicemails, no callbacks from corporate, and front-desk miscommunications about visiting policies. Some reviewers describe management as defensive or unhelpful when concerns are raised. Safety issues noted include reports of residents on the floor crying for help with no alarm response and loss of residents’ personal items. There are also mentions of miscommunication during admissions and case work handled poorly or lazily.
Patterns, risk signals, and recommendations: The reviews collectively paint a picture of a facility with a strong rehabilitation program and pockets of very good care, but with systemic inconsistencies in nursing, housekeeping, and communication that have led to serious negative experiences for some families. The most common risk signals are repeated reports of ignored or delayed call bells, sanitation problems, and failures in basic nursing care — issues that can materially affect resident safety and dignity. Several reviewers recommend that families maintain proactive oversight, visit frequently, and verify staffing and care processes in writing. Prospective families should ask for unit-specific staffing patterns, turnover rates, examples of how the facility handles nights and weekends, incident reporting policies, and recent state inspection results. If considering Lexington Court, weigh the strong rehab reputation against reported inconsistencies in long-term nursing care and cleanliness, and clarify which unit or wing a resident would be placed in, since experiences appear to vary significantly by location and staff assignment.
