The reviews for Montello Care Center present a starkly mixed picture with a clear polarization between highly positive rehabilitation and individual staff encounters and numerous, serious complaints about basic hygiene, safety, and management. On the positive side, physical therapy—frequently credited to a therapist named Allan/Alan—receives consistent and emphatic praise. Multiple reviewers describe knowledgeable, communicative therapists who explain exercises, produce early measurable progress, and contribute to fast recoveries. Several reviewers also highlight caring, friendly, and professional front-line staff (nurses, CNAs, social worker, and some dietary/kitchen staff) and report respectful interactions, individualized attention (use of residents’ first names), and an overall supportive team dynamic during those positive stays. Dining and food quality are described favorably by some, and a number of reviewers explicitly recommend the facility for its rehabilitation services and certain staff members.
Contrasting sharply with the positive reports are numerous, repeated allegations of serious deficiencies. The most common and alarming themes relate to sanitation and hygiene: pervasive urine and feces odors, soiled common areas and resident rooms, dirt under beds, lack of clean bedding, residents unbathed or not shaved, mouths with old food, and reports of urine/feces present on floors. These issues are tied to infection control concerns and food safety violations, and reviewers noted repeated inspection findings, suggesting systemic problems rather than isolated lapses. Cleaning routines and infection prevention are characterized as inadequate, with multiple reviewers explicitly expressing fear or disgust and stating they would not recommend the facility based on cleanliness.
Safety, supervision, and clinical care concerns are also prominent. Reviewers report understaffing and poor staff availability, instances of staff indifference or inattentiveness (including a nurse observed on the phone), unsupervised residents exposed to urine, malfunctioning or unsafe medical equipment, missing mattresses, and unsafe bed placements (such as a bed pinched against the wall and frame). Medication management problems are cited (nurses not checking the Medication Administration Record/MAR, medication mismanagement), and there are allegations of neglect during hospice care—residents not fed for days, not monitored, or left in unsafe/unhygienic conditions. Some reviews escalate to adverse outcomes, mentioning falls, injuries, death, sepsis, and legal action or investigations. There are also serious allegations about management-level misconduct in some reviews (claims of embezzlement and requests for shutdown), which, if accurate, would reflect grave administrative failures.
A clear pattern emerges of inconsistent quality: individual staff members or departments (notably rehab) can perform at a high level and elicit strong praise, while other shifts, units, or aspects of facility operation fail to meet basic standards. This variability suggests staffing instability, uneven training or supervision, and possible breakdowns in oversight and quality control. Where reviewers report positive experiences, they often single out specific employees by name and credit cohesive teamwork; where reviewers report negative experiences, the issues tend to be systemic (cleaning policies, infection control, medication administration, hospice procedures) and recurring across multiple comments.
From a facilities and management perspective, the reviews point to operational problems beyond interpersonal care: repeated inspection failures, food safety violations, poor cleaning programs, and potential regulatory attention. These are not just comfort issues but carry clinical and legal implications (infection risk, medication errors, inadequate hospice care). The simultaneous presence of glowing rehabilitation outcomes and severe environmental or managerial issues raises the possibility that certain programs (like rehab) are well-staffed and managed, while long-term care, housekeeping, nursing oversight, and hospice services are understaffed or poorly supervised.
In summary, Montello Care Center elicits strong praise for specific clinical services—most notably physical therapy—and for individual caregivers who provide compassionate, effective care. However, multiple reviews also document pervasive sanitation and hygiene failures, understaffing, clinical oversight problems (medication administration, hospice neglect), and even allegations of regulatory and legal problems. The overall sentiment is therefore highly mixed but weighted by many severe safety and cleanliness complaints that warrant attention. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s excellent rehab reputation against repeated, serious concerns about cleanliness, supervision, medication management, and hospice care; review recent inspection reports, ask facility leadership about staffing ratios and infection-control practices, and, if possible, seek direct observation of the areas and services most frequently criticized.
