Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers report excellent, compassionate frontline care and successful rehabilitation outcomes, while a substantial number recount serious neglect, poor management, and harmful lapses in medical and personal care. Positive reviews emphasize strong therapy teams, caring nursing assistants, useful activities, and successful transitions to assisted living. Negative reviews describe neglect serious enough to cause weight loss, bedsores, unaddressed medical changes, and even death or emergency hospital transfers.
Care quality and clinical outcomes show a clear split. A sizable portion of reviewers praise the rehabilitation program (PT/OT), highlighting therapists who produced meaningful gains and families who were grateful for recovery. Multiple accounts single out individual nurses, CNAs, and a weekend charge nurse as attentive and compassionate. Conversely, numerous reports allege significant failures: residents left in wheelchairs for long periods, missed or delayed medications and pain relief, poor wound care, hygiene lapses, and documented instances of bedsores, bruises, or unresponsiveness that required ambulance transfers. Several reviewers explicitly state they would not return or recommend the facility due to these safety and care concerns.
Staffing, responsiveness, and consistency are recurring themes. Many reviewers explicitly cite understaffing as the root cause of long waits for help, unanswered call lights, skipped meals, and delayed baths or bedding changes. This inconsistency contributes to the polarized experiences: when staffing and individual caregivers are available and engaged, families report excellent care; when coverage is thin or particular shifts are problematic (notably nights and some weekends), care deteriorates considerably. There are also multiple accounts of unprofessional behavior by some nurses and staff — including rudeness, intimidation, and refusal to follow basic hygiene or PPE protocols — which contrasts sharply with other reports praising the same categories of staff.
Management, communication, and administrative issues are prominent in negative reviews. Several readers describe management as billing-focused, accusatory, or unresponsive to family concerns, with meetings or case management interactions feeling intimidating. Misfiled paperwork, poor disclosure of infections/outbreaks, and failure to promptly communicate changes in a resident's condition are noted repeatedly. A few families described the administration as not returning calls, failing to offer hospice or condolence, or otherwise lacking empathy. However, some reviews praise specific leaders and directors, and a handful say recent management changes improved care, indicating variability by shift or timeframe.
Facility environment and amenities present a contrast: the exterior and lobby are frequently described as pleasant and welcoming, and the activities program (bingo, live music, games) and shuttle/transport services are appreciated. At the same time, resident rooms — especially shared rooms — are consistently criticized as small, outdated, uncomfortable (old/wrinkled carpets, bad beds, even reports of collapsing beds), and sometimes unsafe. Dining receives mixed feedback: some find institutional food acceptable with choices available, while many others complain of frozen/canned meals, undercooked items, late service, and skipped feedings for some residents.
Infection control and dignity concerns appear in several alarming accounts. Reviewers allege PPE and outbreak protocols were not followed or disclosed promptly, and some report residents being left in soiled conditions. These issues, along with reports of residents dying alone or families not being adequately supported during end-of-life care, raise serious concerns about safety, transparency, and respect for residents.
Patterns and recommendations based on reviews: the facility appears capable of providing excellent rehabilitation and compassionate care under the right conditions, but experiences vary widely depending on staffing levels, specific shifts, and individual caregivers or managers. Prospective residents and families should tour the facility multiple times, ask about staffing ratios and weekend/night coverage, request names and contacts for primary caregivers and managers, inquire about infection-control policies and documentation practices, and verify how the facility handles communication, hospice offerings, and transitions of care. Given the severity of some negative reports (weight loss, bedsores, neglect, and delayed medical action), families should maintain active advocacy and follow-up if choosing this facility.
In sum, Puyallup Nursing and Rehabilitation Center shows strengths in rehab services, dedicated caregivers, and some strong leaders, but also exhibits frequent, serious failures in consistency, staffing, communication, and facility upkeep that have led to harm in multiple reviews. The facility may be a good fit for some patients — particularly those focused on rehab with strong family advocacy — but several reviews indicate significant risk factors that warrant careful, ongoing oversight by families and thorough due diligence prior to placement.
