The reviews for Rancho Mirage Health And Rehabilitation Center present a mixed but concerning picture: multiple reviewers praise the physical environment and some staff, while a significant number describe serious lapses in clinical care, staffing, and communication. Positive remarks consistently highlight that the building is newer, bright, and clean, with comfortable, attractive rooms and scenic views. Several reviews call out helpful management and staff members, identify some caring CNAs and at least one attentive nurse, and describe the facility as a strong rehab option or "better than most" in terms of physical amenities and rehabilitation services in some cases. Hospice services are also noted to be available on site.
However, the predominant and more urgent themes across reviews are about staffing shortages and care quality. Multiple summaries explicitly report that units are understaffed or have insufficient CNA coverage, leading to delayed or refused assistance (including CNAs refusing to help patients walk). Reviewers report long waits for nurses and instances of unresponsive or rude staff, including at least one account of a demeaning nurse. These staffing issues are tied to other negative outcomes described below and to frequent complaints about poor communication from staff and management.
Several reviewers describe serious clinical and safety incidents. Reported incidents include a patient fall resulting in visible injury (a cut above the right eye and a black eye), an unauthorized removal of a catheter, and mishandling of a colostomy bag—specifically a claim that a bag was emptied and not replaced. One review alleges a patient was left in bed almost the entire day (23.5 hours), and another describes a room that smelled of urine. Medication management problems are also reported: reviewers noted no clear instructions on how to take medications and described staff "guessing" meds, which reviewers judged unacceptable. Because these are multiple, specific allegations across reviews, they represent significant safety and quality-of-care concerns that prospective residents and family members should investigate further.
Therapy and rehabilitation are described inconsistently. A number of reviews praise the facility as a good rehab environment, but others state that physical therapy is insufficient. This split suggests variability in therapy quality or consistency of services between units or over time. Dining is another consistent pain point: several reviewers call the food "terrible." Room arrangements can be limiting—shared rooms with only one TV were mentioned—affecting privacy and resident comfort for some.
Overall, the pattern is one of strong physical plant and intermittent good staff interactions, undermined in multiple reports by staffing shortfalls, communication failures, and several serious clinical mistakes or omissions. If considering this facility, visitors should verify current staffing levels, ask about staff-to-resident ratios on the intended unit, request written policies and examples of medication administration and wound/fall protocols, and inquire about incident reporting and follow-up. Families should also ask management how they address complaints, how consistent therapy schedules are, and whether any recent corrective actions have been taken in response to the kinds of safety and hygiene concerns described in these reviews.
