Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized but leans strongly negative. Many reviewers recount serious failures in basic nursing care—missed baths, missed medications, catheter neglect, untreated wounds and pressure ulcers, and inadequate assistance with feeding and toileting. Numerous reviewers describe an unclean environment (bodily fluid stains, soiled bedding left in place, foul odors) and inadequate cleaning or sanitization. These clinical and hygiene lapses are tied to recurring allegations of neglect and, in some reports, serious consequences including sepsis, hospitalizations, and deaths. There are also multiple allegations of infection outbreaks (COVID-19, pneumonia) and subsequent poor outbreak management.
Staffing and staff behavior are central themes. A frequent complaint is chronic understaffing and high turnover, which reviewers link to long call-light wait times, residents left unattended, and reduced therapy time. Some CNAs are criticized for using personal phones during care and for being inattentive; several reviews question whether some RNs are properly following physician orders or are adequately trained. At the same time, many reviews name individual caregivers—nurses, CNAs, and therapists—who provided excellent, compassionate care. This contrast suggests inconsistent staffing quality and potentially significant variation by shift, unit, or individual caregiver.
Communication and administrative responsiveness are recurring problems. Reviewers frequently cite poor or non-working phone/voicemail systems, unanswered family calls, and social workers or administration that are unavailable or dismissive. Some families report billing or documentation problems (including allegations of falsified medical information) and difficulty getting clear updates. A few reviewers note that after escalating concerns to management the situation improved, with better communication and care—indicating that leadership intervention can change outcomes, but that such intervention is not guaranteed or consistently applied.
Facility condition, safety, and amenities receive mixed but mostly negative comments. Many reviewers describe the building as outdated, dim, overcrowded, and in disrepair (peeling paint, basement-like rooms, poor air conditioning, nonfunctional beds). Privacy is limited because of shared rooms and end-of-hallway placements, and some residents reportedly wandered unsafely. There are specific alarm-raising claims including theft of personal items, bedbug reports, staff leaving early during crises, and instances where basic safety responses (after a fall, for example) were inadequate. A smaller set of reviewers, however, describe clean areas, functioning dining rooms, and brighter updated stations following recent changes in ownership or management.
Rehabilitation and activities show wide variance. Multiple reviewers complain therapy was minimal, cancelled, or limited to very short sessions (reports of 15 minutes per day), while others praise the therapy staff as motivating, knowledgeable, and instrumental in recovery. Dining also draws mixed feedback—some reviewers describe poor meals (e.g., hotdog or dry sandwiches), and others praise the food and dining socialization. Activities, chaplain services, and hospice partnerships received positive mention in some accounts, indicating that nonmedical support services are available but inconsistently delivered.
Patterns and notable concerns: the reviews show a consistent pattern of variability — some residents and families report outstanding, compassionate care and meaningful rehabilitation, while many others report neglect, poor hygiene, and unsafe conditions. The negative reports are often severe and specific (bedsores, missed meds, sepsis, filthy rooms), which elevates their significance beyond routine dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews call for regulatory intervention or even facility shutdown, and several reviewers said they filed state complaints. There are also several accounts that after direct intervention by management care improved, suggesting systemic issues may be addressable but are not reliably fixed.
In conclusion, Sheridan Health and Rehabilitation Center elicits highly mixed but predominantly concerning feedback. If considering placement, prospective residents and families should: (1) directly assess current staffing levels and care routines for the specific unit or wing being considered, (2) request recent state inspection reports and complaint histories, (3) inquire about infection control, cleaning protocols, and wound care processes, and (4) verify therapy schedules and documented outcomes. The reviews indicate pockets of excellent individual caregivers and some administrative improvements, but they also document repeated, serious failures in clinical care, cleanliness, communication, and safety that warrant careful scrutiny before choosing this facility.
