The reviews present a mixed but strongly polarized picture of First Community Village Healthcare Center. Positive commentary centers largely on the short-term rehabilitation experience and the physical campus: multiple reviewers specifically praise the rehab unit, describing excellent care, attentive nurses and aides, and positive rehab outcomes. The facility layout, cleanliness, and on-site amenities (spa, swimming pool, dining room) are frequently called out as strengths. Several reviewers note friendly and helpful staff, active social programming, and a responsiveness to call buttons or timely resolution of minor issues, and at least one reviewer said they would return to the facility for rehab services.
At the same time, a number of serious concerns recur across reviews, particularly in contexts that appear to describe longer-term or higher-acuity care. Several reviewers reported overwhelmed staff, low morale, poor communication, and broken promises to families. Staffing continuity is a recurring issue: some accounts state the facility relies heavily on temporary agency staff, which reviewers link to inconsistent care and a lack of reliable supervision. Multiple reviews raise alarming clinical-safety issues: neglected wound care leading to infections and additional hospitalization or surgery, development of ulcers/bed sores, and other indications of inadequate nursing attention. Hygiene lapses were specifically mentioned (for example, staff not wearing gloves when serving or feeding residents). One review also called out dietary problems — notably high-sugar meals being served to a diabetic resident.
Financial and management concerns are prominent in the negative accounts. Reviews allege a large upfront cost, very high private-pay rates (one review cites up to $550/day), and claims that families lost substantial portions of retirement savings. Reviewers describe a perceived lack of value for those costs when higher levels of care are needed. Complaints about poor communication and unmet promises suggest management and administrative follow-through may be inconsistent; one reviewer explicitly urged others to avoid the facility. Renovation work is noted as incomplete in at least one review, which may reflect ongoing transitions in the facility's condition or services.
Taken together, the pattern in these reviews suggests a bifurcation between the facility's strengths as a short-term rehabilitation destination and serious shortcomings in some areas of long-term or complex nursing care. Positive reports consistently reference a pleasant, well-equipped environment and good rehab staff and outcomes. Negative reports focus on staffing shortages or reliance on temps, lapses in clinical care and hygiene, problematic dietary management, and troubling financial issues for families. The contrast implies that experiences may vary substantially depending on the unit (rehab vs. long-term care), the timing of stay (during or after renovations), and the specific clinical needs of the resident.
For prospective residents and families, the reviews recommend a cautious, targeted approach: confirm which unit the person would be placed in, ask detailed questions about staffing models (including use of agency staff), nurse and STNA supervision practices, wound-care and infection-control protocols, dietary management for conditions such as diabetes, and the specifics of costs and financial contracts before committing. If seeking short-term rehabilitation, the facility has multiple positive reports to support considering it. If seeking long-term care for someone with complex medical needs, the reviews contain multiple red flags that warrant careful verification and possibly exploring alternatives.
