The reviews for Chase Memorial Nursing Home are highly polarized, with a mix of strong praise and very serious allegations. On the positive side, many reviewers emphasize the warmth and personal attention provided by direct care staff: caregivers are frequently described as friendly, caring, and attentive, with several reports noting that staff know residents by name and create a family-oriented atmosphere. Multiple accounts highlight staff dedication and expertise, therapy animals, holiday decorations, live music in the dining room, and a comfortable, clean environment. These favorable reviews portray a facility that can and does deliver compassionate, high-quality daily care and meaningful activities to residents.
Conversely, a substantial subset of reviews details severe care and safety concerns that are not minor complaints but potential clinical failures. Specific and alarming allegations include verbal abuse and humiliation of residents, neglect resulting in bed sores, and medical neglect culminating in sepsis, dehydration, and malnutrition. There are also reports of critical clinical errors such as failure to apply a BiPAP mask and anecdotal accounts of a single nurse being responsible for many residents at a time. Several reviewers describe encounters with dismissive or uncaring nursing management—particularly regarding end-stage conditions like COPD—and claim the situation escalated to emergency room transfers. These kinds of allegations suggest serious inconsistencies in clinical care and patient safety.
Staffing and management emerge as central and recurring themes across positive and negative reviews. Praise tends to focus on frontline caregivers who appear compassionate and hardworking; however, many negative reviews attribute poor outcomes to staffing shortages, overworked staff, and alleged management problems including unethical behavior and even corruption. The combination of staffing shortfalls and managerial issues could help explain why some families experience excellent care while others report neglect or abuse. Several reviewers explicitly state that staff are overburdened and required to perform double duty, which raises the risk of missed care tasks, delayed responses to emergencies, and lowered oversight.
Facility conditions are another area of mixed reports. Some reviewers describe the building as clean, well-decorated, and maintained, while others report dirty and unsafe conditions, including the unusual complaint of animals (cats) on tables and antiquated equipment dating back decades. Dining and activities receive positive mentions from those who enjoy the band in the dining room and holiday decorations, and therapy animals are specifically cited as a comforting presence. At the same time, concerns about rehabilitation services and overall safety during care episodes appear in negative accounts.
Communication and responsiveness are also inconsistent. Several reviewers praise friendly, accessible staff, while others complain of unresponsive personnel, unanswered phone calls, and dismissive attitudes from nursing or management. These communication failures can compound clinical problems, leaving families feeling shut out and unsure about the status of their loved ones.
Taken together, the pattern across reviews suggests a facility with real strengths in frontline caregiving and resident-focused activities but also with serious, recurrent weaknesses in clinical oversight, staffing levels, and management practices. The disparity in experiences—ranging from "top-notch, loving care" to reports that the facility "should be shut down"—indicates significant variability in care quality that may depend on shift staffing, individual caregivers, or unit-level management. For families evaluating this facility, these reviews recommend a cautious approach: verify recent state inspection and complaint reports, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and clinical protocols (especially for high-acuity needs like BiPAP use and wound care), observe care during visits (mealtimes, medication passes, hygiene procedures), and request documentation about infection control, pressure ulcer prevention, and emergency response. If considering placement or monitoring an existing resident, frequent in-person visits and clear, documented communication channels with management may help identify whether an individual resident is in a consistently safe and attentive care environment.
