Overall impression: Reviews for Avamere Rehabilitation of Issaquah are highly polarized and inconsistent. A substantial number of reviews describe excellent, attentive, and effective rehabilitation care resulting in measurable recovery and positive experiences; other reviews describe serious safety lapses, poor hygiene, unresponsive administration, and substandard care. This split suggests the facility can deliver very good care under certain conditions or shifts, but there are recurrent and significant failures that pose real risks to vulnerable residents.
Care quality and safety: A major theme across the negative reviews is concern about clinical safety and basic patient supervision. Multiple reviewers reported patients left unsupervised (e.g., left alone in front of a TV late at night), near-miss accidents, and at least one fall out of a wheelchair attributed to lack of supervision. There are reports of bedsores, rashes, urine-soiled beds, and other signs of neglect in hygiene and wound care. Conversely, several reviewers praised therapists and nurses for attentive, responsive care and for running effective PT/OT programs that led to improved mobility. The net picture is inconsistent clinical oversight: where staff and therapy were engaged, outcomes were good; where staffing or oversight lagged, serious problems occurred.
Staff behavior and teamwork: Staff performance is described as uneven. Numerous reviews call out specific staff as outstanding—named nurses and therapists received high praise for listening, responding quickly, and providing compassionate care. However, other reviewers describe rude CNAs, nurses who do not respond to call lights, and caregivers who appear overworked or distracted (spending time on phones). Weekend shifts are repeatedly mentioned as being especially thinly staffed and less attentive. Several reviews describe a lack of teamwork between nursing and caregiving staff, meaning tasks like answering call lights or assisting immobile patients may be delayed or ignored.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Reviews also contradict one another about the physical environment. Some visitors described clean, fresh-smelling, well-maintained rooms and soothing decor. Others reported rundown conditions: peeling paint, cluttered hallways, strong odors, and overall poor cleanliness. These environmental complaints often accompany reports of unsanitary patient care (urine-soiled bedding, bedsores) and create a perception of neglect. The facility’s location and garden views were noted positively by some, which points again to an uneven experience that may vary by wing, room, or shift.
Dining and therapy operations: Meal service drew mixed feedback. Several families praised the food—adequate portions and choices—while others described meals as poor, “prison-like,” or missed entirely. Dietary requests were reported ignored in some cases. Therapy programs earned compliments for tailored PT/OT and enthusiastic staff in multiple reviews, yet other reviewers said therapy was minimal, scheduled around staff convenience, not well-suited to patients with cognitive impairment, or lacked appropriate follow-through. Limited physical space for therapy and distractions were also mentioned.
Administration, communication, and discharge handling: Administrative processes and communication are a recurrent negative theme. Reviewers reported poor responsiveness from management, an unhelpful admissions coordinator cited by name, and a director described as unresponsive. Several families experienced abrupt and distressing discharge processes—particularly when Medicare coverage was denied—where residents were given only a short window (two days in one report) to leave. Families also reported trouble reaching staff by phone, a virtually non-existent phone system, and inconsistent communication about care plans and follow-up services. In a number of instances, promised home-care follow-up failed to materialize.
Infection control and policy adherence: Some reviews raised infection-control concerns: staff not masking on arrival during a COVID wave, visitation restrictions during COVID causing isolation and upset, and at least one report of a resident testing positive for COVID-19. These items, combined with inconsistent cleanliness, heighten concerns about the facility’s ability to protect high-risk patients during infectious outbreaks.
Patterns and practical advice: The reviews show two strong, recurring patterns. First, weekday care (particularly on well-staffed shifts) tends to get higher marks—attentive nursing, effective therapy, clean rooms, and good communication. Second, weekends, nights, and certain wings or units appear more likely to have staffing shortages, poor supervision, and lapses in cleanliness and service. Multiple reviewers concluded they would move loved ones elsewhere or explicitly advised others to avoid the facility. Several also recommended strong family advocacy and visiting in person to assess conditions before placement.
Bottom line: Avamere Rehabilitation of Issaquah appears capable of delivering very good rehabilitative care and has staff members who are compassionate, skilled, and effective. At the same time, consistent and serious operational failures are reported frequently enough to be concerning—safety and supervision lapses, inconsistent cleanliness, poor administrative communication, weekend and night understaffing, and problematic discharge practices. Prospective families should tour the facility in person, ask specific questions about weekend staffing, supervision for high-dependency or nonverbal patients, infection-control protocols, and discharge policies, and remain prepared to advocate actively for their loved one. Current families should monitor staffing patterns, verify dietary and wound care needs are being met, and document any incidents so they can escalate unresolved issues to administration or outside authorities if necessary.
