Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise the people, therapy services, leadership, and overall environment, while a significant minority report serious problems with staffing, cleanliness, safety, and consistency of care. Many families and residents describe Cedar Ridge Center as warm, family-like, and well-run under specific leaders, while others recount episodes they consider neglectful or unsafe. The result is a facility that appears capable of excellent care but also vulnerable to lapses that can have severe consequences for residents.
Care quality: Several reviewers report excellent hands-on care from CNAs and nurses, noting compassion, attentiveness, and successful outcomes (including recoveries and positive therapy results). The therapy department receives repeated praise for helpful, effective work. However, many reviews also describe inconsistent care—often attributed to high staff turnover and understaffing—resulting in missed assistance, delayed responses to call lights, and in extreme cases residents being left with soiled bedding or unattended after falls. A few reviews describe serious negative events (residents falling and being injured, feces left for hours, sleeping staff) that indicate systemic supervision or staffing problems at times.
Staff and leadership: Leadership and certain staff members are frequently singled out for praise. The administrator, identified by name in multiple reviews, is described as proactive, hands-on, and responsive. Several individual staff—Darla Smith and an LPN named Patty among them—are commended for exemplary behavior. At the same time, other reviewers cite high turnover, poor nurse attitudes, and occasional personnel conflicts. The pattern suggests that when staffing is stable and leadership is engaged, care is very good; when turnover or management lapses occur, care quality and resident safety can decline.
Facilities and cleanliness: Opinions about cleanliness are mixed. Numerous reviewers call the facility clean, well-run, and home-like, and some emphasize a pleasant smell and tidy rooms. Conversely, several strong complaints describe filthy conditions, urine odor, clogged toilets, and inconsistent housekeeping. Room size and layout are also concerns for some: multiple reviewers report small, cramped rooms with shared tiny bathrooms and limited shower access, making the environment unsuitable for long-term residents in their view.
Dining and dietary care: Dining experiences vary considerably. Some reviewers praise the food and the cooks’ accommodations, but multiple comments note inconsistent meals, heavy-carb menus, breakfast problems, and dietary needs not being reliably met. Meal assistance is reported as lacking at times, particularly when staffing levels are low. Overall, dining quality appears inconsistent and dependent on staffing and kitchen practices.
Safety and policy concerns: Several reviews raise safety and policy issues beyond staffing levels—examples include animals being brought into the facility despite rules, theft of personal belongings reported by at least one family, restricted visitation complaints, and an improper physical therapy evaluation cited as causing a patient dismissal. These incidents, while not universally reported, are serious and indicate areas where policy enforcement, supervision, and security could be strengthened.
Activities, social work, and other supports: Many reviewers praise engaging activities, helpful social workers, and transparent communication when staff are accessible. Several families describe a warm, home-like atmosphere with staff who invest in residents’ wellbeing and involve families. These positive aspects are frequently associated with good outcomes and satisfied residents.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is variability. Positive reviews consistently mention strong personal care, good therapy, effective administrators, and a welcoming environment. Negative reviews tend to cluster around understaffing, turnover, poor supervision, occasional hygiene and sanitation problems, and safety lapses. This suggests the center performs well when leadership presence and staffing are sufficient, but delivers inconsistent care during staffing shortages or management gaps.
Recommendation/context for families: Prospective families should weigh both sides: Cedar Ridge Center can provide compassionate, effective care—especially in therapy and when specific staff are present—and the administrator and several employees receive high praise. At the same time, ask targeted questions during tours and admissions: current staffing ratios and turnover rates, how call lights are handled, housekeeping schedules, protocols for falls and soiled linens, meal accommodations for special diets, visitor policies, and how incidents (theft, animals, supervisory lapses) are prevented and investigated. Request to meet the administrator and therapy staff, tour rooms (including bathrooms and shower access), and get references from current families. Monitoring first weeks closely and maintaining frequent communication with staff can help identify whether the facility is operating at the positive standard many reviewers describe or experiencing the troubling lapses reported by others.
