Overall sentiment across the reviews for Oakbrook Health & Rehabilitation Center is highly polarized but leans strongly negative. While a notable minority of reviewers praise individual staff members, therapy teams, and certain operational aspects (clean rooms, activities, some hot meals, secure entry), the dominant themes are serious quality-of-care and safety concerns. Multiple reviewers described incidents of neglect, delayed responses to calls for help, missed or mishandled medications, untreated wounds, and failures to transport or appropriately treat residents after falls or sudden declines. Several accounts allege severe outcomes, including hospital readmissions, infections, septic shock, and death, and at least some reviewers explicitly warn others not to place loved ones at the facility.
Staffing and responsiveness are repeatedly highlighted as core problems. Many reviewers report chronic short-staffing—particularly on nights and weekends—leading to long call-bell wait times, residents left unfed or incontinent for long periods, and instances of caregivers sleeping or being on their phones while patients needed assistance. Conversely, multiple reviews single out specific caregivers and nurses (Tammy, Gina, Ms Tina, Mr Truth, Brandy, CNA Lee-Ann) as compassionate and effective. This sharp contrast points to inconsistent staffing quality: some shifts or individuals provide excellent care while others are neglectful or unprofessional.
Therapy and rehabilitation are another area of conflicting reports. A portion of reviewers describe expert, multidisciplinary therapy programs and good rehabilitation outcomes, while others report virtually no rehabilitation, abandoned therapy sessions, old or unusable equipment, and poor functional results after discharge. Several reviewers explicitly stated they received no meaningful rehab despite being at a center that advertises rehabilitation services. This inconsistency suggests variability in therapy staffing, scheduling, or program management.
Facility cleanliness and comfort receive mixed reviews but the negative accounts are frequent and specific. Reports include dirty floors, soiled linens, bugs, strong urine odors, filthy walls, uncomfortable or nasty beds, and improper laundry handling (pants drying in courtyard, clothes left on floors). A number of reviewers asked for regulatory review (DHEC) or mentioned potential legal action due to alleged unsanitary conditions and care failures. At the same time, other reviewers note recent updates like new flooring, prompt fixes to issues such as TVs, and generally well-kept areas, reinforcing the overall pattern of uneven performance across time, units, or shifts.
Food and activities show similar divergence: some reviewers appreciate fresh, balanced meals with multiple daily service times and active programming (piano, church visits, social events), while others describe cold, stale, or even two-day-old items, residents left hungry, and staff unwilling or rude when alternate meals are requested. Activities and social programming appear to be present and valued by some families, but they do not mitigate the more serious care and safety concerns raised by many others.
Management, communication, and accountability emerge as persistent problems in the negative reviews. Several families describe directors and the director of nursing as disengaged, often remaining in the office and not knowing residents or responding to complaints. There are multiple reports of poor communication with families, unreturned calls, discharge mix-ups, billing errors (charged for meds not provided), and alleged HIPAA or care-rights violations. Reviewers express frustration with shifting blame and lack of follow-through, which exacerbates distrust and motivates calls for external investigation.
Safety and legal concerns are raised repeatedly: alleged medication errors (including psychotropic medications given without informing the primary physician), unsafe physical security practices (deadbolt on an emergency exit), a nurse-call button hazard, and reports of theft of personal items. These accounts, together with allegations of untreated wounds, dehydration, and delayed recognition of illness, suggest systemic lapses that could pose high risk to vulnerable residents if accurate. Several reviewers explicitly urge others not to choose the facility and reference regulatory complaints or lawsuits.
In summary, the reviews show a facility with pockets of strong, compassionate care and competent therapy, but with widespread, recurring reports of neglect, poor management, unsafe practices, and inconsistent cleanliness. The most prominent actionable patterns are chronic understaffing (especially nights/weekends), inconsistent medication and therapy delivery, poor hygiene/housekeeping standards in some areas, and weak management accountability. Families considering Oakbrook should weigh the visible variability: positive experiences tied to specific caregivers and teams coexist with alarming negative reports that may warrant direct, detailed conversations with management, in-person inspections, and verification of staffing levels and recent regulatory history before placement.
