Overall sentiment across the reviews for River Edge Rehab & Nursing is strongly mixed, with a substantial number of enthusiastic endorsements coexisting alongside serious, sometimes alarming negative allegations. Many reviewers praise the facility for its skilled rehabilitation services, compassionate individual staff members, cleanliness, and specific employees and teams who provided exceptional care. At the same time, numerous reports describe systemic problems tied to staffing levels, safety, and inconsistent quality of nursing care, including allegations that warrant close scrutiny.
Therapy and rehabilitation stand out as the most consistently positive theme. Multiple reviewers describe the therapy team as excellent, engaging, and supportive, calling River Edge a fantastic rehab facility and a top option in the area. The therapy gym is repeatedly noted as newly renovated and very nice. Individual therapists received name recognition (for example, Ugo), and many families credited nursing and therapy staff with helping residents recover and return home. These positive accounts indicate that the facility has strong rehabilitation programming, good therapy resources, and staff who can deliver measurable recovery outcomes.
Caregiving and nursing present a mixed picture with a clear pattern of variability. Numerous reviews celebrate CNAs and nurses as attentive, kind, professional, and family-like. Several stories describe staff going above and beyond, clean linens, and compassionate treatment. Conversely, a significant portion of reviews report understaffing, delayed or ignored call bells, aides occupied with phones, inadequate feeding assistance, and patients left alone for extended periods. There are multiple allegations of serious lapses: falls without timely assistance, missing or nonexistent incident reports, lack of family notification after injuries, withholding pain medication, and in one account an alleged death linked to neglect. This split suggests that quality may depend heavily on which staff are on duty and that staffing levels and shift coverage may be inconsistent.
Facility maintenance and dining receive predominantly positive marks but with notable exceptions. Many reviewers praise maintenance, housekeeping, and a generally clean environment with well-presented food and alternative menu choices. At the same time, some reviews describe the building as dingy, smelling of urine, or leaving beds in a soiled condition with feces not cleaned promptly and missing basic items like pillows or blankets. Food quality is usually described as good, but a few reviewers called it substandard. These conflicting reports support an interpretation that housekeeping and dining can be high quality but may fail at times, possibly linked to staffing shortages or shift variability.
Administration, admissions, and community engagement also show dual narratives. Several reviewers call the administration cohesive and effective and praise admissions and marketing staff by name (Mikaela, April, Tammy) as welcoming and helpful. The facility is noted for community partnerships, including collaboration with Visiting Angels and other local organizations. Yet other reviews portray the administration as overstaffed or inattentive to frontline problems, unaware of serious incidents, or focused on financial concerns more than patient welfare. Some visitors reported rude reception staff or uncomfortable visitation experiences. The contrast suggests that administrative strengths exist, particularly in admissions and public-facing roles, but that leadership may not be consistently addressing clinical or staffing issues raised by families.
Safety, incident reporting, and allegations of misconduct are the most serious concerns raised. Several reviewers assert that accidents were not properly documented, families were not informed of injuries, and basic safety protocols were not followed. There are allegations about withholding medications, neglect leading to falls or worse outcomes, suspected theft, and misrepresentation about transporting residents to dialysis or doctor appointments. These are high-severity claims that, if accurate, indicate systemic failures in resident safety, documentation, and transparency. Multiple reviews explicitly characterize the facility as understaffed on the care side while administrative roles appear adequately staffed, which can exacerbate risks to residents.
In summary, River Edge Rehab & Nursing appears to offer a high-quality rehabilitation program with strong therapy staff and improved facilities, and many families report outstanding, compassionate care and successful recoveries. At the same time, there is a recurring and concerning pattern of understaffing, inconsistent nursing care, delayed responses to calls, hygiene lapses, poor incident reporting, and serious allegations of neglect or misconduct in a subset of stays. The reviews suggest that resident experience can vary widely depending on timing, transfers, and which staff are on duty. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong rehab and therapy reputation against the reported variability in nursing care and safety. It would be prudent to ask facility leadership about staffing ratios across shifts, incident reporting procedures, protocols for transfers and transport (for example to dialysis), medication administration policies, and how the facility addresses and communicates adverse events. Visiting in person, inspecting the therapy area and rooms, and speaking directly with clinical leadership and current residents or families will help gauge whether the specific concerns raised in some reviews have been addressed and whether the strong positives described by many families are likely to apply to an individual resident's stay.
