Overall sentiment across the reviews for Lomond Peak Nursing and Rehabilitation is highly polarized, with a substantial number of detailed, serious complaints balanced by numerous positive reports praising individual staff members, certain administrators, therapy services, and periods of improved cleanliness and care. The negative reviews describe systemic problems — persistent understaffing, inconsistent leadership, alleged neglect, hygiene failures, medication and medical follow-up lapses, and safety and theft concerns. At the same time, many reviewers specifically single out compassionate CNAs, therapists, activity staff, and a few administrators for excellent care and responsiveness, and some reviewers cite official positive indicators such as a 4/5 CMS rating and zero deficiencies on certain surveys. The overall picture is one of a facility that has pockets of very good care and some documented improvements, but also serious, recurring failures that create high variability in resident experiences.
Care quality and clinical issues are among the most frequently reported negative themes. Multiple reviewers describe delayed or untimely administration of medications, failure to submit necessary samples, lack of physician presence (in-house doctor rarely visits), and poor medical follow-up. There are specific, alarming allegations that neglect contributed to severe outcomes, including at least two reported deaths and examples of septic urinary infection after missed or mishandled care. Several accounts describe residents left on commodes for long periods, residents not bathed for weeks, inadequate skin care and infection prevention in some cases, and unsafe lifting practices. Conversely, other reviews report skilled care, bed sore prevention, and nurses who effectively liaise with doctors, underscoring inconsistent clinical performance across shifts or units.
Staffing, staff behavior, and safety are recurring cross-cutting concerns. Many reviews point to chronic understaffing and rapid CNA turnover, which reviewers associate with rushed or neglected care, long wait times for assistance, and a chaotic 24/7 environment. Some reviews praise individual staff as compassionate and attentive, but others report serious misconduct: theft of personal items by staff, suspected drug use or theft activity, fights in the parking lot, and general safety hazards. There are multiple accounts of staff intimidation, discrimination about residents' choice of physician, threats to discharge residents when families complain, and even termination or retaliation reported by employees or family members who raised concerns. These patterns suggest an organizational culture problem according to several reviewers, though other accounts praise specific supervisors and administrators who have been effective in addressing needs.
Hygiene, environment, and dining experiences show similar polarization. Negative reports include filthy floors, moldy carpets, strong odors, urine in hallways, blackened feet, and unwashed clothing; some reviewers say residents are found barefoot or in nightclothes in common areas. Food complaints focus on long delays, cold or unpalatable meals, and inadequate feeding assistance. Conversely, other reviewers describe very clean, organized facilities, newly updated interiors, dining areas that look and smell good, and meals that are satisfying. Therapy spaces and the gym receive positive comments from several reviewers, and some families praise the facility's activities program and particular staff who run engaging events.
Management, administration turnover, and regulatory matters are another major theme. Several reviews describe repeated changes in leadership (naming Max and criticizing a director named Dennis), confusing and inconsistent policies, and poor communication from administration and HR. There are allegations of licensing and regulatory issues, and some reviewers express suspicion about Medicaid billing or other administrative practices. At the same time, a number of reviews credit particular administrators with building effective teams and improving care, and some reviewers note that the facility improved significantly over time—especially around COVID-era safety—until more recent downhill changes. This creates a pattern where leadership and culture can vary markedly depending on the period and who is in charge.
In sum, the reviews portray Lomond Peak Nursing and Rehabilitation as a facility with strong positives at the level of individual caregivers, therapy services, and certain administrative leaders, but also with numerous, serious systemic problems reported by many families and staff. The most significant negative patterns are chronic understaffing, inconsistent clinical oversight that has led to delayed medications and missed care, hygiene and environmental failures, resident safety concerns including theft and potential substance issues, and reported retaliation or poor handling of complaints. Because experiences range from excellent to deeply troubling, these reviews suggest wide variability in quality depending on staffing, leadership, and time. Prospective residents and families should consider visiting in person, inspecting current staffing and cleanliness, asking about physician coverage, medication protocols, incident reporting, and recent survey results to get a current and concrete sense of whether the facility’s strengths are consistent and whether the serious concerns documented in some reviews have been resolved.
