The reviews for Odd Fellows Home present a highly polarized and conflicted picture, with substantial reports of both commendable care and serious safety and quality concerns. A significant number of reviewers praise individual staff members, therapists, and certain departments for compassionate, hands-on care, effective rehabilitation, and thorough discharge planning. Multiple accounts describe caregivers who go above and beyond, friendly and nurturing staff, useful care-plan meetings, successful PT/OT outcomes that enabled residents to walk again, and a proactive approach to arranging post-discharge home care (PCA, nurses, ongoing PT/OT). The dining program receives mixed feedback but includes positive notes about good meals, an excellent new chef, and a clean, well-run kitchen reported by some families and residents.
Counterbalancing these positives are numerous, recurring, and serious negative themes that raise safety and management concerns. Several reviewers allege neglectful care, including ignored toileting requests, residents left in urine for long periods, delays of up to two hours for assistance, and instances where cleaning or showering only occurred after repeated complaints. There are multiple reports of falls and physical injuries (bruises and cuts), sometimes accompanied by explanations that reviewers find unsubstantiated and lacking proper documentation. Additional safety deficits are highlighted, such as beds without side railings, an unsafe activity room, unsupervised residents, and staff behaviors described as inattentive, distracted by phones, sleeping on duty, or outright angry and disrespectful. These issues converge into accounts of emotional distress for families and a sense that care lapses have caused or risked harm to residents.
Staff performance is portrayed as highly inconsistent. Many reviewers single out named caregivers and departments as exemplary — compassionate, professional, and attentive — while others describe CNAs who are lazy, angry, or abusive, and nurses who are inattentive or on the phone during shifts. There are even allegations of staff assault and a reported expired CNA license, which contribute to an overarching concern about staffing oversight, training, and accountability. This inconsistency suggests that resident experience may depend heavily on which caregivers or shifts are involved, creating unpredictable quality of care.
Facility condition and cleanliness are another area of divergence. Several reviewers describe the facility as dirty, smelling of urine, and in a generally poor aesthetic state, with at least one reviewer calling it a "dump" and others noting outdated layout and deteriorated common areas. Conversely, some reviews state that the dining room and kitchen are clean and well maintained. This split indicates variability in environmental upkeep across units or times and reinforces the pattern of unevenness that runs through other aspects of care.
Documentation, management response, and accountability emerge as prominent concerns. Multiple reviews indicate missing or inadequate documentation for injuries and incidents, families report that investigations were not conducted or witnesses not contacted, and some reviewers call explicitly for an external investigation or management change. While some families report that administration was available and responsive, the presence of contradictory accounts — including complaints that management ignored serious incidents or failed to take corrective action — points to gaps in incident reporting, transparency, and consistent leadership practices.
Activities and social engagement receive generally positive mentions when staff are engaged; however, there are also notes about unsafe activity rooms and resident verbal or physical conflicts, which echo broader safety concerns. Food and therapeutic services are frequently cited as strengths: the rehab department and particular therapists are praised for producing measurable improvements in residents' mobility and independence, and the dining service received commendation for menu variety and improvement under new leadership.
In sum, the reviews indicate a facility with meaningful strengths — notably committed individual caregivers, effective therapy services, and pockets of good administrative responsiveness and dining quality — but also with systemic and recurring weaknesses that pose potential safety and quality risks. The most pressing negative patterns are alleged neglect, inconsistent staffing behavior (including reports of sleeping, phone distraction, angry or abusive CNAs), safety lapses (falls, missing bed railings), poor documentation and incident follow-up, sanitation concerns, and management accountability issues. The overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: while some families feel grateful and confident in the care received, others report serious incidents and recommend that loved ones not be sent there. These patterns suggest the need for targeted oversight, consistent staffing standards, reliable incident documentation, and attention to environmental cleaning and resident safety to address the wide variability reflected in the reviews.
