Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Multiple reviewers describe excellent, compassionate care provided by experienced nurses, therapists, and aides; others describe serious, sometimes dangerous shortcomings including medical neglect, poor responsiveness, and alleged abuse. The most consistent dividing line in the feedback is staffing and management: where staffing levels, training, and management oversight are adequate, reviewers report a pleasant, safe, and supportive environment; where staffing is thin or turnover is high, reviewers report delays, neglect, and errors that negatively affect resident safety and well-being.
Care quality and medical management emerge as core themes with both strong positives and troubling negatives. Positive comments highlight skilled nursing, successful transitional care, strong PT/therapy services, and dignified hospice/end-of-life care. These reviewers note professional, experienced staff who communicate with families and manage complex needs (including feeding tubes and rehab). Conversely, multiple reports describe delayed physician visits, failure to investigate abuse, over-medication, medication changes without informed consent, untreated UTIs and gastrointestinal bleeding for prolonged periods, premature discharges followed by hospital readmissions, and frequent hospitalizations. These serious clinical concerns suggest gaps in clinical oversight and inconsistent medical follow-through.
Staffing, training, and interpersonal behavior are central to the complaints. Many reviews praise individual caregivers as compassionate and attentive, sometimes going above and beyond. However, a sizable number of reviewers report rude, unhelpful, or inadequately trained staff, CNAs and nurses who appear overworked, call-buttons that go unanswered for long periods, and aides who fail to assist with bathroom needs or leave residents unattended. Staffing shortages and high turnover are repeatedly cited as primary causes of missed care, slow response times (15–20 minutes in some accounts), and overworked personnel. This inconsistency in staff quality creates an unpredictable experience—families who encounter the “right” staff often feel grateful, while others encounter neglect.
Facility and environmental issues are also mixed. Positive reports describe clean, spacious rooms, large bathrooms, and a generally home-like environment in parts of the facility. Negative reports highlight poor lighting, cold rooms, old beds, creaky equipment, strong smells or poor air quality, dirty shared shower areas, and even references to a “rat-hole” facility. Shower temperature extremes and shared showers that are not kept clean were specifically mentioned. These details indicate variability across units or inconsistent maintenance and housekeeping standards.
Dining and nutrition are another area of divergence. Some reviewers praise meals (especially desserts and in-room dining) and say food is generally good. Others report that meals are cold, microwaved or premade, not tasty, and in at least one instance incorrect for a resident’s prescribed liquid diet—resulting in gastrointestinal trouble. Reports of hamburgers, hot dogs, and premade salads juxtaposed with praise for pies illustrate inconsistent food quality and concerns about diet safety for medically fragile residents (including choking risk).
Administration and communication problems surface frequently and span several domains: difficulty obtaining medical records, refusal to release records, vague or unhelpful social work, billing disputes, unresolved insurance coverage and debt collection, and allegations of fraudulent rate reporting. Some reviewers also noted that Medicare is not accepted and that costs are high—important facts for prospective residents and families. Communication breakdowns about care choices, unclear care plans, and lack of callbacks amplify family frustration and erode trust.
Social life and activities are present but inconsistent. Some residents enjoy frequent activities, church services twice a week, minister visits, and make new friends—reviewers with positive experiences highlight engagement and a welcoming atmosphere. Others report little activity in the halls and unattended dayrooms with loud televisions and a less-engaging environment. The size of the facility is noted multiple times; being a large facility appears to create both benefits (resources, therapy services) and drawbacks (impersonal care, harder to ensure consistent staff performance across all units).
Recurring safety concerns are alarming: choking risk, residents left unassisted when walking, unattended dayrooms, inability to hear call lights, and delayed or missed medical response. Several reviews recount serious outcomes—weight loss, hospital readmissions, and medical complications—linked to these systemic problems. Families should consider these safety-related reports seriously when evaluating the facility for a medically vulnerable person.
Pattern and recommendation: The review corpus paints a facility with pockets of excellent clinical and personal care but also with systemic weaknesses—principally staffing, management, communication, and consistency of services. Positive experiences often reference specific staff members, therapy successes, clean private rooms, and compassionate hospice care. Negative experiences cluster around understaffing, medical neglect, administrative opacity, and inconsistent food and housekeeping. Prospective residents and families should: (1) ask about current staffing ratios by shift and unit, (2) request recent inspection and staffing reports, (3) verify policies on medication changes and access to medical records, (4) confirm diet protocols and how special diets are managed, (5) clarify billing practices and Medicare/insurance acceptance, and (6) tour the specific unit where the resident would live (to assess cleanliness, lighting, and activity offerings).
In summary, Good Samaritan Society - Stillwater receives strongly mixed reviews. It can provide high-quality, compassionate, and skilled care in many cases—especially in therapy, hospice, and where experienced staff are present—but there are repeated, credible reports of serious clinical lapses, understaffing, poor communication, and administrative issues that have harmed residents. Families considering this facility should weigh both sets of reports, perform targeted questions and inspections, and maintain vigilant oversight if they enroll a loved one there.
