The reviews for Avamere Rehabilitation of Burien are highly mixed and polarized, with strong clusters of praise for therapy and certain front-line caregivers contrasted by repeated, serious safety and quality concerns related to nursing care, staffing, and cleanliness. Many reviewers describe exceptional experiences with physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and select CNAs or nurses (several staff members were named and praised individually). Those positive reports often highlight measurable rehabilitation gains (rapid mobility improvement, getting a patient walking in under three weeks), attentive therapy teams, clean private rooms, individualized activities, and supportive end-of-life care. When the facility performs well, families report good communication, coordinated care conferences, responsive staff, laundry service, accommodating diets, and an overall respectful, compassionate environment.
However, a significant portion of reviews describes alarming deficits in basic nursing care and facility operations. Multiple accounts allege neglect—residents left in urine or feces, being left on bedpans until numbness, delayed responses to call buttons resulting in urinary retention and UTIs, and reports that staff sometimes refused access to care. There are specific, serious clinical incidents described: missed or incorrect medications (including antibiotics omitted from med lists), bladder retention with bloody urine, aspiration risk from improper feeding, pneumonia and other infections leading to ambulance transfers and hospitalizations, and at least one death mentioned in temporal association with care. Some reviewers explicitly warn that the facility’s lapses created septic risk. These are not isolated minor complaints; they are clinical safety events that families flagged repeatedly.
Staffing and communication are major themes driving variation in experience. Numerous reviews cite slow call-light responses, especially at night, and language barriers among staff leading to poor communication and misunderstanding of care needs. Several accounts say night staff were particularly problematic—unorganized, inattentive, or unable to communicate effectively—creating safety and comfort issues for residents. Conversely, many reviewers identify individual staff members who were exemplary, compassionate, and highly effective. This points to inconsistency across shifts and personnel rather than a uniformly poor or uniformly excellent staff profile. Several reviews also note a decline in quality associated with management or upper-management changes, suggesting systemic problems with retention, training, or oversight.
Facility condition and infection control receive mixed feedback. Positive reviews describe clean rooms, well-kept common areas, and helpful laundry services. Negative reports include more serious environmental concerns: black mold in a shower, cockroach sightings, malfunctioning heating/cooling systems, phones that didn’t work, and unannounced fire drills. Cleanliness and maintenance problems compound the clinical concerns when reviewers also describe poor hygiene or infection spread. These environmental issues may be intermittent or area-specific, but when present they amplify families’ fears about infection control and resident comfort.
Dining and nutrition are another area of split experiences. Some families report good, accommodating dietary services that tailored meals to picky eaters and aided recovery. Others describe food as unappetizing, improperly seasoned for the elderly (unusual spices), high in salt and fat, or too soft and potentially risky for aspiration. Several reviewers tied poor feeding or dietary handling to weight loss, dehydration, or aspiration risk. Given vulnerable populations in rehab and long-term care, such inconsistencies in nutrition and feeding supervision are clinically significant.
Management, policies, and billing also appear as recurrent friction points. Several reviews mention discharge pressure—claims that beds would be given away or fees assessed if hospital charges were not paid—and steep or sudden room-and-board price increases. Families described feeling pressured during discharge or confused about billing, and some threatened or initiated complaints to regulators. Additional administrative issues include misplaced personal belongings, parking problems (staff occupying visitor spots), unreliable phone access, and inconsistent follow-through on care conferences. A few reviewers explicitly criticized medical oversight (a doctor skipping rounds) and alleged that staff bypassed calling 911 in serious situations.
Taken together, the patterns suggest a facility with pockets of high-quality therapy and many individual caregivers who deliver excellent, compassionate care, but also with recurrent systemic problems in nursing oversight, staffing consistency, basic hygiene/maintenance, and emergency responsiveness. The mix of positive and deeply concerning negative reports means that prospective residents and families should approach placement with caution: verify staffing ratios and call-light response times, observe multiple shifts if possible (including night), ask about infection-control measures and documented incidents, confirm medication reconciliation procedures and physician rounding policies, and get specifics on billing and discharge practices. The presence of strong therapy teams and named, reliable caregivers is a real asset, but the safety-related complaints (neglect, missed meds, infection risk, and delayed emergency response) are significant and warrant careful scrutiny and possibly reporting to oversight agencies if they are observed firsthand.
In summary, Avamere Rehabilitation of Burien presents a deeply inconsistent picture across reviews. Many families experienced excellent rehabilitation, attentive therapists, and compassionate staff; others reported neglectful nursing care, clinical safety events, environmental hazards, and administrative problems. The dual nature of the feedback—excellent therapy and some exemplary caregivers alongside repeated serious safety and neglect allegations—suggests that quality may depend heavily on staffing at specific times, individual caregivers, and current management practices. Families should weigh the demonstrated strengths in therapy and some staff against the recurring safety and cleanliness concerns, do thorough in-person evaluations, and ensure clear, documented care agreements and oversight if choosing this facility.
