Overall sentiment in the reviews for Lacamas Creek Post Acute is highly mixed, with a clear split between strong praise for bedside caregivers and therapists on one hand, and serious operational, safety, and management concerns on the other. Many reviewers emphatically commend the nursing staff, CNAs, and certain therapists for being compassionate, professional, and effective. Positive reports include successful rehab outcomes (improvements in balance and strength), attentive individualized care, spacious and clean rooms, pleasant outdoor spaces, and staff who are reassuring and resourceful. Several reviewers explicitly named therapists and aides who made a significant positive difference, and multiple families reported that residents were thriving, participating in activities, and regaining independence during their stays.
Contrasting sharply with those positive accounts are frequent and repeated complaints about understaffing and responsiveness. Numerous reviews describe long delays in call-button response (ranging up to an hour in some reports), missed or delayed medication administrations, and wound care not being performed as ordered. These failures are not merely inconveniences: several reviewers reported negative clinical consequences, including weight loss, worsening conditions requiring higher-level care, falls where assistance was delayed or absent, and at least one account tied to ICU admission. Such incidents are especially concerning because they suggest systemic issues with staffing levels, communication, and adherence to clinical orders rather than isolated lapses.
Therapy services receive mixed feedback. A number of reviews praise PT/OT as top-notch and instrumental to recovery, with specific staff highlighted for excellent care. However, other reviewers described the therapy department as poorly run, disorganized, or providing inadequate frequency of sessions. This variability suggests that therapy quality may depend heavily on individual therapists or shifting scheduling and staffing rather than a consistently applied program. Families should be aware that rehab experiences here can vary considerably.
Dining and food quality are frequently criticized. Across many reviews the food is described as bland, cafeteria-grade, limited in variety, and sometimes served cold. Although a few reviewers said meals were tasty, the prevailing theme is disappointment with both quality and portion/choice limitations. Maintenance and housekeeping also show mixed reports: while the facility is repeatedly noted as clean and sanitary by many, others report housekeeping lapses, broken equipment left unfixed, and specific incidents such as matted hair not being addressed by salon staff.
Administrative and management issues appear repeatedly. Several reviewers described the front desk and office staff as unresponsive, social workers as unavailable ("always in meetings"), and billing or insurance matters as contentious or confusing. There are reports of early discharge with promised home health services that never materialized, and at least one account mentioning a cyber security event that disrupted call systems. Taken together, these reports point to organizational and communication weaknesses that can directly affect patient care continuity and family trust.
Serious allegations of neglect, abusive behavior, and prejudicial remarks by staff appear in multiple reviews. While these are not the majority of comments, their severity demands attention: derogatory or racist comments, perceived intentional neglect (not showering, withholding care), and abusive treatment were reported and led at least one family to pursue reporting to state authorities. These accounts coexist with many reports of respectful, dignified care, which underscores a troubling inconsistency in staff behavior and oversight.
Safety and quality patterns: there is a recurrent pattern where positive clinical experiences occur when staffing and individual caregivers are engaged and stable, while negative outcomes cluster around periods of short staffing, administrative breakdowns, or specific personnel issues. Noise and acoustics (loud TVs, echoing halls) were cited as quality-of-life problems, and some reviewers mentioned restrictive COVID-era visitation rules that impacted family access during lockdowns.
In summary, Lacamas Creek Post Acute offers a dichotomous profile. Strengths include a generally clean, pleasant facility; many compassionate and effective nurses, aides, and therapists; and good rehab outcomes for numerous residents. Weaknesses are centered on staffing consistency, medication and wound-care reliability, food quality, administrative responsiveness, and occasional serious allegations of neglect or abusive behavior. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sides: the potential for excellent person-centered care exists, particularly when specific staff members are involved, but there is nontrivial risk related to inconsistent operational performance. When evaluating this facility in person, ask specific questions and seek evidence about current staffing ratios, medication administration procedures, wound-care protocols, therapy schedules and frequency, how the facility handles overnight call coverage and noise control, and how billing and discharge coordination (including home health) are managed. Also consider reviewing recent state inspection reports and speaking with families of current residents to get up-to-date insight into whether the operational problems described in several reviews have been addressed.
