Overall sentiment across the reviews is predominantly negative, with a few isolated positives. Reviewers acknowledged some kindness from individual staff members and noted that the resident initially received good treatment. Hospice care, when involved, was singled out as being very good. However, these positives are outweighed by multiple serious concerns about clinical care, communication, and management practices.
Care quality emerges as the central theme of concern. One review describes a rapid and severe decline in a loved one's condition while at the facility, citing septic shock and multiple organs shutting down. That incident was tied to a 15-day stay that was described as "skilled care," yet the reviewer questions whether the care met that standard. The combination of a critical medical event and doubt that the facility provided appropriate skilled care creates a strong negative signal about clinical oversight and the adequacy of medical treatment provided during the stay.
Communication and consent problems are another major pattern. Multiple comments point to miscommunication about the loved one's condition and an instance where medications were changed without family consent. Those issues indicate failures in information-sharing and in respecting family involvement in care decisions. A confrontation with a doctor reported by a reviewer further suggests breakdowns in professional communication and conflict when family members sought explanations or advocated for their loved one.
Staffing and management concerns are also prominent. While some staff were described as "nice," reviewers repeatedly say staff lacked necessary knowledge and express a broadly negative stance toward staff and hiring practices. One review calls out an employee by name (Samanda) with a negative reference, and another reviewer concludes they would not recommend the facility, characterizing their experience as a "nightmare." Together, these comments point to perceived deficiencies in hiring, training, supervision, or culture that affect care delivery and family trust.
There is one clear positive thread: hospice care provided outside or in conjunction with the facility was described as very good. This suggests that when specialized end-of-life services were involved, families perceived better quality. Still, that positive does not offset the systemic issues raised about the facility's own clinical care and communications.
Notably absent from these summaries are detailed comments about facilities, dining, activities, or routine nonclinical operations. The reviews focus tightly on clinical outcomes, staff competence, communication, and management decisions, so there is insufficient information to assess the physical environment, food quality, social programming, or day-to-day resident life.
In summary, the dominant impression is one of significant concern about clinical care and communication at Piney Valley (Keyser Healthcare Center), with isolated positives around individual staff kindness initially and praise for hospice services. Prospective residents and families should be especially attentive to clinical oversight, medication management policies, staff training and supervision, and how the facility handles family communication and consent. If considering this facility, ask targeted questions about incident reporting, staff qualifications and turnover, medication consent protocols, and the facility's process for escalating and communicating significant changes in a resident's condition.
