The reviews for Accordius Health at Roanoke present a strongly polarized picture: several reviewers praise the facility's clinical strengths, especially the respiratory and rehabilitation teams, while others report serious safety, cleanliness, and staffing failures. On the positive side, multiple accounts highlight excellent respiratory care (notably successes with ventilator and tracheostomy patients), a robust physical/occupational therapy program, and individual staff members who were attentive, diligent, and in some cases credited with life‑saving care. Renovation efforts — new floors, fresh paint, and courtyard improvements — are visible and appreciated by some reviewers, and there are active resident activities and a resident council. Several reviewers explicitly note that parts of the nursing and therapy staff are courteous and competent, and one review suggested the facility has potential to be a 5‑Star operation if certain issues are addressed.
However, a large and troubling subset of reviews documents serious and recurring problems that pose safety and quality‑of‑care concerns. Multiple reports describe the facility being unprepared for new admissions: rooms lacking electric beds, side rails, working call buttons, and other necessary equipment. In several accounts staff allegedly resorted to improvised signaling devices such as a hand bell or baby monitor because the call system was nonfunctional. There are numerous complaints about delayed or nonresponsive nursing care — long periods without any nurse, missed call lights, and phone lines that were not answered — which reviewers tie to neglectful outcomes including bedsores, infections, hospital readmissions, amputations, and even deaths.
Cleanliness and food quality are frequent pain points. Reviewers reported filthy floors, stained bed linens, and examples of spoiled or molded food. While some areas are being remodeled and look improved (hallways, courtyard), other living spaces were described as in disarray or unclean. Dining complaints ("molded meat," "sad lunch") add to the perception of inconsistent basic care. Several reviews also describe disturbing instances of unprofessional staff behavior — allegations of intoxication (alcohol odor and slurred speech), rude or abusive comments, and staff who appeared apathetic or hostile toward residents. These reports suggest not only isolated lapses but potential systemic issues with staff supervision and culture.
Administrative and communication issues recur throughout the reviews. Some family members reported poor transparency or deflection (a policy statement that seemed to disclaim responsibility for events "outside of the door"), difficulty reaching staff by phone, and alleged inadequate responses to illness or COVID exposures. One review described management firing an employee who was sick rather than implementing testing or safer protocols, raising concerns about workplace safety and infection control. There are also allegations of documentation problems, including false charting and reference to a "ghost doctor," which, if accurate, indicate serious lapses in clinical governance and medical oversight.
Taken together, the pattern is one of pronounced variability: strong clinical programs (particularly in respiratory and rehabilitative care) and some exceptional staff coexist with alarming reports of neglect, safety failures, cleanliness problems, and unprofessional conduct. This variability means outcomes and experiences appear highly dependent on which staff or unit a resident encounters. The ongoing renovations are a visible positive but also a source of disruption that reviewers link to some readiness and cleanliness problems for new admissions.
For prospective residents or family members considering this facility, the reviews suggest several prudent actions: ask specific, written questions about call bell functionality and response times; verify availability and condition of essential equipment (electric beds, side rails); request recent infection control and staffing audit results; meet or call the therapy and respiratory teams to confirm services; and review state inspection and complaint records for corroborating information. Given the reports of serious adverse outcomes by some families alongside strong clinical praise from others, careful on‑site assessment and direct, documented assurances from management about staff training, supervision, and incident reporting would be warranted before admission.
