Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, with a strong polarity between reviewers who experienced compassionate, effective rehabilitation and those who reported neglectful or unsafe care. A persistent theme is inconsistency: many reviewers praise individual staff members (CNAs, med nurses, and therapists) and specific rehabilitation outcomes, while others describe serious lapses in basic nursing care, hygiene, communication, and administration. This split suggests the facility has capable personnel and useful programs but struggles with reliable staffing, standardized procedures, and management oversight.
Care quality and clinical oversight emerge as central concerns. Several reviewers reported excellent rehabilitation services — physical, occupational, and speech therapy — that led to measurable improvement and increased independence. Named staff (for example, Jean and PT Raymond in some reports) were singled out for attentive, effective therapy. At the same time, multiple reviews recount worrying examples of neglect: residents reportedly left soiled or in vomit, bloody or dirty bed linens, missed turning schedules leading to bedsores, skipped showers, and delayed assistance to the restroom. There are also accounts of medication errors, poor handoff/communication with physicians, and insufficient physician presence (doctor visits described as only once weekly), which reviewers connected to substandard clinical monitoring.
Staffing, responsiveness, and professionalism are recurrent topics. Many families and residents highlight compassionate, kind, and helpful CNAs and nurses who provided emotional support, medication management, and recovery help. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews describe rude, dismissive, or confrontational staff and management, unprofessional behavior, and poor telephone communication. Slow call-light response times and general unavailability of staff were frequently cited and directly tied to safety concerns — including residents left in distress, delayed toilet assistance, or long waits for basic needs. The reports indicate variability by shift and personnel: while some shifts and individuals excel, others appear undertrained or indifferent.
Facility, cleanliness, and infection control reports are mixed but include serious allegations. Many reviewers praised the building itself — described as beautiful, attractive, and well-kept, with a nice dining room, secure entrances, and spacious rooms. Some called the facility very clean and home-like, with good security measures in place. However, other reviewers reported unsanitary conditions: dirty laundry, sticky floors from catheter leakage, bloody sheets, and staff not wearing masks during outbreaks. There are mentions of flu or COVID outbreaks and quarantined areas; some reviewers believed infection control protocols were not consistently followed. These divergent reports underscore inconsistent housekeeping and infection prevention practices across time or staffing patterns.
Dining and daily living services evoke polarized feedback. Positive comments reference a nice dining room, occasional good meals, and staff who accommodated some needs. Negative reports are more numerous and specific: meals described as canned or frozen, inedible or not warm enough, lack of alternatives for disliked or restricted foods, and instances of dietary restrictions or allergies being ignored (for example, lactose content provided despite directives or fish served despite a fish allergy). Reviewers also noted缺 of basic supplies such as daily washcloths or towels and food and water out of reach for residents. These issues contributed to dissatisfaction with daily care and dignity concerns.
Administration, billing, and communication problems are a dominant negative theme. Several reviewers recount billing disputes, unexpected Medicare/collection calls, difficulty obtaining refunds, and abrupt Medicare-limited discharges that forced moves to assisted living. Some described the business office as confrontational or unhelpful, with limited options for payment arrangements. Families also complained about poor communication from administration — calls not returned, conflicting clinical notes, and lack of transparency about patient placement (for example, not being told a room was adjacent to a dementia patient). These administrative failures intensified caregiver stress and eroded trust.
Safety and neglect allegations take center stage in the most serious negative reviews. Multiple reports claim residents were left unattended on the floor, were not turned regularly leading to bedsores, or experienced severe hygiene neglect. Some reviewers used strong language — calling for the facility to be shut down, citing documentation and photos — and reported calling attorneys or regulatory bodies. While other reviewers describe successful rehabilitations and compassionate care, the documented allegations of neglect, safety lapses, and infection-control breaches are significant and recurring enough to be a major red flag for prospective residents and families.
In summary, Landmark Care Center appears to offer high-quality rehabilitation services and has many strengths in individual caregiving, facility aesthetics, security, and certain aspects of nursing care. However, widespread and recurrent complaints about staffing shortages, inconsistent staff performance, slow response times, hygiene lapses, food quality, poor communication, and billing/administrative issues present a complex picture. The facility seems capable of delivering excellent care in certain cases, but inconsistent policies, staffing, and management practices have led to severe negative experiences for a notable portion of reviewers. Prospective residents and their families should weigh the documented rehabilitative strengths and the presence of praised staff against the substantial and repeated concerns about safety, basic care, and administrative reliability. If considering this facility, families should ask specific, documented questions about staffing ratios, call-light response protocols, infection control procedures, dietary accommodations, discharge/billing policies, and what measures management has taken to address the patterns reported here.
