Overall sentiment across the review summaries is highly polarized: numerous reviewers praise the therapy teams, many direct-care staff, and certain aspects of the dining and activity programs, while a significant number of reviews describe serious problems with staffing, communication, cleanliness, and safety. The facility appears to produce two very different experiences for families and residents—some receive attentive, professional care and rehabilitation, while others report neglect, traumatic handling of sensitive matters, and infrastructural or administrative failures.
Care quality and clinical services are a prominent theme with mixed but consistent patterns. Therapy services (occupational and physical therapy) receive strong, repeated praise: reviewers describe knowledgeable, compassionate therapists who go the extra mile, treat patients like family, and help residents regain strength and confidence. Several accounts explicitly recommend the facility for short-term rehab based on therapy outcomes. By contrast, basic nursing and personal care are more mixed: many reviewers call nurses and CNAs genuine and caring, yet multiple accounts detail lapses such as delayed showers (over a week), linens only changed when therapy intervened, missed medication (including a five-day lapse for pain meds), and insufficient medical exams. These contradictions suggest the therapy department and some individual caregivers are high-performing, while overall nursing coverage and consistency can be poor, likely tied to staffing shortages.
Staffing, management, and culture emerge as another major theme. Understaffing is repeatedly cited—reports of extremely high patient-to-staff ratios (some stating 25–30 patients per nurse/CNA) and insufficient help that impacts care are frequent. Reviews describe two divergent impressions of leadership: some reviewers praise a responsive, engaged admissions coordinator and note positive changes under new ownership or management that focus on staff care and quality improvement. Others allege administrative dysfunction, call the administration "horrible," single out the Director of Nursing as two-faced, and even claim improprieties such as suspect state inspection outcomes. Communication failures are repeatedly highlighted: families report calls not returned, poor discharge coordination, incorrect forms not corrected, and the most severe examples include no notification of a resident's death, funeral home being contacted before family were informed, and belongings being bagged and removed—events described as traumatic.
Facility condition and safety issues are inconsistent across reports. A subset of reviewers describes the building as clean, well-maintained, modern, and well-equipped, with pleasant food aromas and bright bathrooms. However, an equally sizable group describes the facility as old, dirty, smelling strongly of urine or disinfectant, and sometimes suffering from sewage overflows. Some reviewers explicitly say the place "smells very bad" or is "not welcoming," and others mention residents left alone in the dark, disheveled appearance, and missing clothing. There are also grave safety concerns: allegations of neglect, hospital readmissions, and at least one reported death linked by reviewers to neglect or poor supervision. Taken together, these accounts point to inconsistent environmental standards and potential safety lapses dependent on staffing and management situations.
Dining, activities, and resident life receive mostly positive notes where described. Dining staff are credited with accommodating nutritional needs, and reviewers cite engaging activities—needlework, bingo, entertainment—and staff enthusiasm about resident accomplishments. Positive daily-life elements, like pleasant food smells and cheerful staff in communal areas, appear in several reviews and contribute to the favorable rehabilitation experiences cited.
Billing, legal, and ethical concerns are another recurrent area of complaint. Multiple reviewers describe billing disputes, unexpected large bills, timing problems with insurance, and at least one threat of legal action from administration. Some reviewers also suspect that a number of positive reviews are employee-authored or otherwise inauthentic, which raises credibility concerns for potential families researching the facility. These issues, combined with accounts of poor communication and administrative hostility, underscore the need for transparency around billing practices and for independent verification of inspection records and complaint outcomes.
Notable patterns and takeaways: 1) The therapy department is a clear strength and often the reason for positive rehab outcomes and recommendations. 2) Staffing shortages appear to be a root cause for many negative experiences—affecting personal care, medication administration, cleanliness, and supervision. 3) Experiences seem to vary widely, possibly influenced by shifts in management or day-to-day staffing levels; several reviews explicitly cite improvements under new leadership while others describe ongoing serious problems. 4) Communication breakdowns and the handling of critical incidents (especially death and belongings) are recurrent and among the most distressing complaints. 5) Reliability of reviews is questioned by some reviewers who suspect internal manipulation.
For anyone evaluating Poudre Canyon Health and Rehabilitation, these reviews suggest due diligence is essential. Verify current staffing ratios, ask for recent state inspection reports and complaint resolution documentation, tour the specific unit(s) where care would be provided (not just common areas), ask about medication management and end-of-life communication protocols, and get clear, written information on billing and insurance coordination. The facility clearly has capable, dedicated therapists and compassionate staff in many roles, but recurring operational issues—understaffing, inconsistent cleanliness, poor communication, and serious administrative failures—pose material concerns that prospective residents and families should investigate thoroughly before making placement decisions.
