Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed but skewed toward serious concern. Multiple reviewers give extremely negative accounts that include allegations of inadequate nursing care, safety issues, and infection control problems; other reviewers praise therapy staff and certain aspects of the facility such as the rehab/swing bed services, cleanliness in some areas, and accommodating administrative interactions. The contrast is sharp: several reviewers explicitly warn others to avoid the facility and urge reporting to authorities, while others describe the staff as wonderful and the therapy/rehab teams as excellent.
Care quality and clinical safety: The dominant clinical theme is inconsistency. Therapy teams and some nurses/therapists are repeatedly described as excellent, which suggests that rehabilitative services may be a relative strength. At the same time, there are multiple serious negative clinical claims: a reported refusal by one nurse to call an ambulance, a separate instance where a nurse did call an ambulance, and an allegation that a resident was nearly killed and was in septic shock. Reviewers also describe nursing staff as inadequate, short-staffed, and at times uncaring. These reports point to variability in clinical responsiveness and potential lapses in acute-care escalation and infection control.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication: Reviews highlight two different staff impressions. Positive comments focus on caring, attentive staff and pleasant phone interactions with administrative personnel. Negative comments emphasize unresponsiveness — especially at night — and poor communication both internally and with physicians. Several reviewers specifically mentioned failures to communicate a care plan and poor coordination with doctors. The combination of reported nighttime neglect and staffing shortages suggests that issues may be more pronounced during off-peak hours.
Facilities and hygiene: Descriptions of the physical plant are also mixed. Some reviewers call the building older but well maintained, note adequate parking, a salon on site, and describe clean, odor-free areas. Other reviewers report troubling hygiene problems, specifically urine odors and roach sightings. These contradictory reports raise concerns about inconsistent housekeeping and pest control practices that may vary by unit, shift, or over time.
Dining and amenities: Opinions on dining are moderate. Weekday meals are noted as good by some reviewers, while weekend meals receive criticism and overall food is described as average. Rehab and swing-bed units are singled out as functioning well, and ancillary amenities like the salon are positively mentioned.
Patterns, credibility, and areas of risk: A clear pattern is polarization — strong praise for therapy and some staff versus severe criticism of nursing care, emergency response, infection control, and communication. The most serious recurring themes are emergency response inconsistency (including an alleged refusal to call 911), reports of septic shock/near-fatal outcomes, hygiene/pest issues, and nighttime neglect. Because these issues directly affect resident safety, they are notable even if they come from a subset of reviewers. Conversely, repeated positive mention of therapy teams suggests that certain service lines may be better managed or staffed.
Implications for prospective residents and family members: The reviews indicate you should approach this facility with caution and seek specific, verifiable information before placement. Important topics to confirm in person or by direct questioning include current nurse staffing levels (including nighttime coverage), emergency response protocols and whether staff will promptly call EMS, infection-control and pest-management practices, how care plans are created and communicated (including physician communication), and observations of cleanliness and odors during multiple visits and at different times (including weekends and nights). Also consider requesting references from recent residents or families and asking about recent inspection reports or complaints lodged with regulatory agencies.
In summary, Laurelwood Community Living Center elicits strongly divergent experiences. The facility appears to offer solid rehabilitative therapy services and some staff members and amenities are viewed positively. However, recurrent and serious complaints about nursing responsiveness, emergency handling, hygiene, and communication create substantial cause for concern. These conflicting reports make it essential for prospective residents and families to perform thorough, time-varied site visits and to obtain concrete information about staffing, safety protocols, and oversight before making placement decisions.
