Overall impression: The reviews of Longwood Manor are highly polarized. A substantial group of reviewers praise the facility for attentive, compassionate staff, effective rehabilitation services, clean and well-maintained grounds including attractive patios, and generally satisfying meals. Many families report meaningful mobility improvements, good therapy outcomes, daily checks by staff, and positive hospice or long-term care relationships. Conversely, a distinct subset of reviewers describe serious problems: neglectful or slow care, unresponsiveness to calls for help, allegations of theft and financial exploitation, and reports of unsafe conditions. The result is a mixed to divisive portrait where positive rehabilitation and some steady caregiving coexist with documented, alarming concerns from multiple reviewers.
Care quality and staffing: The most consistent positive theme is the quality of rehabilitation services — physical and occupational therapy are repeatedly described as effective and staffed by patient, engaged therapists. Many reviewers credit the therapy and attentive CNAs/nurses with helping residents regain mobility and return home. Numerous accounts describe staff who are kind, compassionate, and hands-on, with daily checks and supportive social services. However, countervailing reports describe slow or absent responses to call buttons, residents left in the same position for long stretches, weight loss, and deterioration in health. Some reviews describe nurses or supervisors as rude or unprofessional. This suggests variability in staffing performance and possible staffing shortages or training/supervision problems that create uneven resident experiences.
Facility, cleanliness, and amenities: Several reviewers praise the physical environment: well-kept patios and gardens, a large activities/rehabilitation room, and clean rooms with bedding changed frequently. Families often note the facility is well-maintained and that visiting is easy. At the same time, a minority of reviews call the facility very dirty or criticize aspects such as hospital-like shared rooms and bathrooms. Activities are described positively by many (holiday decor, vending machines, smoking patio, TVs allowed), though a few reviewers say activities are insufficient. The mixed comments indicate the building and amenities are generally an asset but perceptions of cleanliness and comfort can vary by unit or over time.
Dining and medical access: Multiple reviewers report wholesome, tasty meals with adequate portions and availability of a doctor on staff, with nurses and social services ready to assist. A number of families explicitly praised daily meals and food quality. Yet a smaller number of reviews mention poor food, refusal to feed residents, or related neglect — again signaling inconsistent delivery of dietary and basic care services.
Management, communication, and safety concerns: Administrative impressions are mixed. Some reviews note positive changes and hardworking charge nurses; others describe problematic administrative turnover, a front desk that is unresponsive or slow to answer calls, and confusing communication (calls from multiple numbers, long hold times). There are several particularly serious allegations: staff theft, financial exploitation (claims involving SSI/Medicare), security head scandals, and even alleged contamination (meth) and unsafe environments. There are also claims of privacy violations and staff lying or being deceitful. These are grave concerns mentioned in multiple reviews and, while they represent a minority, they are significant and, if true, warrant independent investigation. Several reviewers explicitly requested ombudsman or adult protective services involvement.
Patterns and population notes: Long-term residents and families who have been at the facility for extended periods more often describe stable, humane care and praise specific staff members by name. Hospice care experiences are generally positive. Some reviewers mention language barriers affecting care quality for Spanish-speaking residents; others report discriminatory or rude behavior toward disabled individuals and Latino residents. The mixed reports suggest that individual units, shifts, or staff cohorts may differ substantially in quality, and that care can depend heavily on which staff members are on duty.
Conclusion and implications: The dominant themes are (1) strong rehabilitation and many compassionate caregivers who provide good outcomes for residents, and (2) a nontrivial set of severe allegations and inconsistent care episodes that raise safety and management concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the frequent positive reports about therapy, attentive CNAs/nurses, and clean, pleasant grounds against the serious negative reports—particularly allegations of theft, exploitation, neglect, and unresponsiveness. If considering Longwood Manor, verify recent inspection reports, ask facility management about staffing ratios and corrective actions, request references from current families, and consider contacting the local long-term care ombudsman or regulatory agency to learn about any complaints or investigations. If you are already a family member with specific safety concerns reflected in these reviews, consider documenting incidents, escalating to facility administration, and contacting adult protective services or the ombudsman to ensure the concerns are investigated promptly.
