The reviews for Puget Sound Transitional Care present a strongly polarized picture: many reviewers praise an attentive, compassionate, and skilled frontline team, especially CNAs and therapy staff, while a significant minority report serious medical, safety, and management problems. Positive comments emphasize kindness, respect, and dignity toward residents; long‑tenured direct care staff who know residents well; strong teamwork; and specific technical competencies such as proficiency with Hoyer lifts. Rehabilitation and physical therapy receive frequent praise for producing good outcomes and helping residents make clear progress after surgeries or strokes. Multiple reviewers described the facility’s transition services as thoughtful and invaluable, giving families peace of mind during difficult transitions.
Dining and hospitality are often cited as strengths — several reviewers called the food very good, plentiful, and enjoyable (including mentions of a well‑liked Rose Room). Some guests found rooms private, clean, and welcoming, and noted an open, visitor‑friendly atmosphere. The facility also has operational advantages reported by families: on‑site doctors and a nurse practitioner, convenient proximity to a dialysis center, and examples of expanded therapy offerings and activities (movies, bingo, transport) on certain units. A number of reviewers also note that new management has begun a visible culture shift: improved staff‑to‑resident ratios, better cleanliness and hygiene, more homelike environments, and a more positive staff demeanor in some areas.
Counterbalancing these positives are repeated and sometimes severe concerns about clinical safety and facility management. Several reviewers reported medication errors — wrong medications, wrong doses, or administration to the wrong resident — and urged daily monitoring and verification. Complaints also describe delayed medications, overmedication (examples such as a very high pill burden), and inattentive nursing care. Serious safety lapses were alleged, including residents being left on the floor after falls or not being checked following a fall, development of pressure sores linked to care issues, and delayed medical attention even in urgent situations. A few reviews escalate to mentions of complaints to compliance offices, Adult Protective Services, and police; there are allegations of threats by staff, attempts at financial exploitation, and evidence of formal complaints.
Cleanliness and maintenance reports are highly mixed: some reviewers described the facility as exceptionally clean, fresh smelling, and well maintained, while others cited smells, dirty shared bathrooms, water contamination that interfered with hand washing, and generally poor housekeeping. The building itself is described as older and not luxurious: reviewers note an open concept and affordable semi‑private rooms, but also outdated beds or equipment in need of replacement. Noise and roommate issues (e.g., loud TVs) on shared units were mentioned as detracting from recovery for some residents. Call light responsiveness and front desk availability are recurrent operational complaints: reviewers described slow or unresponsive call lights, long waits for assistance, busy staff on cell phones, and unanswered front desk calls.
Management and staffing present a mixed but consequential theme. Several reviews praise dedicated leadership, improved energy under new management, and a commitment to raising standards. Simultaneously, others report high staff turnover, poor treatment of employees, internal arguments among staff, suspicious removal of online reviews, and the need for investigations — all of which erode confidence. Multiple accounts indicate variability by unit: some floors (particularly rehab) and many frontline caregivers earn enthusiastic recommendations, while other floors (including some dementia or skilled nursing units) draw sharp criticism for atmosphere and care quality.
In sum, the facility appears to deliver excellent rehabilitative care and compassionate support in many cases, particularly when experienced, long‑term frontline staff and therapy teams are consistently present. However, there are recurring and substantive reports of medication mishandling, safety incidents (falls and neglect), inconsistent cleanliness, and managerial problems that have, for some families, resulted in a strongly negative overall impression. These patterns suggest that care experience at Puget Sound Transitional Care may vary considerably depending on floor, staff on duty, and recent management interventions. Families considering placement should weigh the strong rehabilitation and compassionate staff reports against the documented safety and management concerns, and consider close oversight, verification of medication practices, and direct communication with leadership about specific safety protocols before committing to long‑term placement.
