Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed, with some families reporting positive experiences related to direct care, therapy and the environment, while others report serious administrative and clinical failures. Multiple reviewers complimented frontline caregivers — describing staff as personable, polite, attentive and understanding — and noted that on-site medical coverage and physical therapy helped residents improve during their stay. The facility’s grounds and common areas are described as nicely manicured, freshly painted and calm, with a large patio and adequate dining space. Activities and special events (Christmas party, pizza party, gifts) were mentioned favorably, and Wi‑Fi availability was noted.
However, a cluster of highly negative reports raises significant concerns about management, communication and clinical oversight. Several reviewers specifically called out a social worker as rude, manipulative and deceitful and described administrative indifference when families requested transfers or information. One reviewer alleged their stepmother was kept against the family’s wishes and that the facility delayed releases, did not provide transfer paperwork, and offered excuses to refuse release — resulting in restricted family access for almost four weeks and an emotionally charged hand-off of clothing in a parking lot. These descriptions point to recurring issues with transparency, responsiveness, and family communication at the administrative level.
There are also serious reported lapses in clinical care and cleanliness from some reviewers. Complaints include failure to notice or monitor a stroke, not tracking vital signs, patients left in urine for extended periods, strong urine odors, and pest sightings (roaches on a microwave). While other reviews say the facility is clean and well maintained, these sanitation and clinical-monitoring allegations are significant red flags that suggest variability in quality of care between units or shifts. The mixed accounts make it difficult to draw a single conclusion about hygiene and clinical safety; rather, they indicate inconsistent performance.
Dining and accommodations also drew mixed feedback. Some reviewers praised timely meals and said residents ate and improved, while others described the food as horrible. Rooms are repeatedly described as small and lacking in amenities such as in-room TVs, and the building itself was characterized as older and in need of updating. Conversely, the dining area and outdoor spaces receive positive mentions. Geographic convenience is another practical factor: at least one reviewer found the facility inconveniently far from family, which can affect visitation and family oversight.
Taken together, the reviews suggest a facility with strengths in direct caregiving, therapy services and pleasant common-area aesthetics, but with troubling inconsistencies in administrative behavior, communication, clinical monitoring and cleanliness. Families considering Fountain Manor Health & Rehabilitation Center should weigh these polarized experiences carefully: ask specific questions about discharge and transfer policies, staffing levels and continuity, clinical monitoring protocols (especially after strokes or acute events), pest-control and cleaning routines, and opportunities to meet the social work/administrative team. A tour that includes conversations with both nursing leadership and recent families, plus a review of inspection reports and complaint history, would be advisable to clarify which of these divergent experiences is most likely to apply to a prospective resident.
