Big Horn Rehabilitation and Care Center

Reviews indicate a facility with noticeable strengths in the interpersonal and therapeutic aspects of care, alongside recurring operational shortcomings. Many families praise the caregiving staff as compassionate, patient, and respectful; reviewers frequently cite warm, family-like relationships between staff and residents, open visiting policies, and good two-way communication with families. Physical and occupational therapists receive particular positive mention for skill and encouragement, and several accounts describe meaningful functional improvements during stays. The facility also appears to be undergoing some positive changes under new ownership, including remodeling efforts and greater attention to staff development and advancement.

At the same time, a number of consistent concerns emerge around basic operations. Multiple reviewers describe cleanliness and odor concerns in common areas and resident rooms, and note delays in personal-care tasks, including assistance after incontinence events. Families also reported slow responses to call buttons and uneven attention to routine needs, which reviewers link to staffing shortfalls and elevated staff turnover. These operational gaps are paired with comments about limited therapy schedules—notably reduced or no weekend therapy—and variable rehabilitation intensity, which can affect short-term recovery expectations.

Dining and nutrition are another frequent source of dissatisfaction. Several families attributed weight loss and illness to inconsistent or poor-quality meals, describing food that some found unpalatable or unsuitable for their loved ones. Reviewers raised questions about the facility’s nutritional management and meal-service consistency; there were also comments about billing and perceived overcharging in at least one account.

Facility condition and management practices draw mixed commentary. While remodeling and other improvements have been noted, the building is described as older with areas needing maintenance. Some reviewers expressed frustration that complaints were not effectively resolved by management, and a pattern of administrative instability and perceived lack of investment in staff and the physical plant was reported. There are also isolated allegations suggesting incentivized positive online reviews, which some readers may view as reducing the reliability of the review profile.

Overall, prospective residents and families should weigh the clear strengths in staff compassion, therapeutic skill, and a welcoming culture against operational weaknesses in cleanliness, timely personal care, meal quality, and management responsiveness. A recommended next step for families considering this facility is an in-person visit that includes a tour of several resident areas, discussion about staffing ratios and weekend therapy availability, a review of recent renovation plans, and direct questions about how the facility tracks and responds to family complaints and nutrition concerns.