Overall impression: Reviews for Courtland are sharply polarized, with some families and residents reporting excellent individualized care, strong nursing leadership, cleanliness, and engaging activities, while others describe serious neglect, safety failures, and management lapses. The feedback clusters into two distinct experiences: a portion of reviewers praise specific staff members, clinical thoroughness, and functional rehab/dialysis services; another portion reports harmful lapses in basic care, safety, and accountability that led them to strongly advise against the facility.
Care quality and safety: Care quality is the most divisive theme. Positive accounts highlight strong nurses (one named staff member, Mary, is called “top-shelf”), attentive clinicians, and observable health improvements. Conversely, multiple reviews describe severe neglect: extreme weight loss (one report cites 15–19 pounds in eight days), dehydration, pressure sores on heel and toe, medications being spat out or not properly administered, and missed nutritional supplements. There are reports of soiled beds, unsafe conditions, and at least one safety incident where a resident was found on the floor. These safety and clinical failures are significant — they indicate inconsistent basic care practices and dangerous variability in oversight.
Staffing, communication, and management: Recurrent issues include understaffing, poor organization, and accountability gaps. Several reviewers describe difficulty reaching management (calls routed to recordings), broken coordination of home care or external communications (fax problems), and a sense that staff do not follow through. While some staff are described as friendly and responsive, language barriers are noted by some family members who found nursing staff hard to understand due to accents, which compounded communication problems. The combination of understaffing and weak follow-through appears strongly correlated with the more serious neglect reports.
Facilities and cleanliness: Reports on cleanliness are mixed. Many reviewers praise the cleanliness of resident rooms and the lobby, and describe the facility as very clean overall. However, there are exceptions: at least one report mentions mice in a resident’s room and another describes unkempt corridors with leaves. There are also disturbing accounts of soiled bedding and waste left in a room, which conflict with the otherwise positive comments about cleanliness and suggest inconsistency in housekeeping or infection control practices.
Dining and nutrition: Dining receives mixed feedback. Some reviewers say the food is very good and appreciate that residents may bring their own food. Others report poor dietary management — especially for medically restricted diets (renal diet concerns) — and note that meals were not modified when needed (meals needed to be chopped, supplements not given). The severe weight loss and lack of initiative to monitor eating reported by families are particularly troubling and point to gaps in nutritional monitoring and follow-up.
Personal property, security, and COVID policies: Multiple reviewers raise concerns about lost or mixed-up clothing and at least one alleged theft of a device. COVID visitation restrictions are repeatedly mentioned as having prevented family visits, which increased distress for relatives and limited their ability to detect problems early. These visitation limits, combined with communication challenges, exacerbated frustration for families trying to advocate for loved ones.
Activities and rehabilitation services: Positive notes include engaging activities such as bingo and painting, and a focus on rehab and dialysis services. Some families credit the facility with meaningful improvements in health and rehabilitation outcomes, indicating that when clinical and staffing conditions are adequate, residents can receive beneficial therapy and social engagement.
Overall pattern and recommendation tendency: The overall pattern is inconsistent care: strong positive experiences are usually tied to particular staff and shifts with good leadership and responsiveness, while negative experiences tend to reflect systemic problems (understaffing, poor oversight, communication breakdowns) that lead to serious clinical and safety incidents. Because of this variability, reviews culminate in sharply divergent recommendations — some would strongly recommend Courtland, citing great staff and outcomes, while others would not recommend it at all due to neglect or abusive incidents.
Bottom line: Courtland shows evidence of capable clinicians and activities when staffing and leadership are functioning well, but multiple reports of neglect, weight loss, medication errors, pressure sores, safety incidents, lost/stolen belongings, pests, and communication failures are serious and recurring concerns. Families considering Courtland should weigh the positive reports of strong nursing leadership and clean rooms against the documented risks of inconsistent care, and should pursue direct inquiries about staffing ratios, nutrition and wound care protocols, infection control, property security, and visitation/communication policies before making placement decisions.
