The reviews present a mixed but pattern-consistent picture of Fairfield Nursing & Rehabilitation Center in which strengths are frequently undermined by operational and clinical inconsistencies. Positive comments commonly mention helpful individual staff members, improved rehabilitation follow-up, appealing private rooms with good views, and consistently praised dining. Several reviewers also note a marked improvement from an earlier, poorer condition—citing cosmetic turnover, cleaner spaces, a lack of urine odor, and better organization and order in the facility. These improvements and the presence of on-site amenities (including an activity room) lead some families and residents to express satisfaction with the environment and aspects of care.
At the same time, serious and recurring concerns appear across multiple summaries. Understaffing is one of the most recurrent issues: reviewers report not enough staff time for residents, long nurse response times, and working call buttons that are broken or ignored. Those staffing shortages correlate with concrete lapses in care — medication mistakes, delayed or nonexistent emergency responses, residents left in wheelchairs for hours, and two reported falls. In at least one case reviewers describe missing urostomy supplies, soiled bedding and clothing that were not changed promptly, and a general sense that dementia-specific needs were neglected. These incidents raise safety and quality-of-care red flags that several families found unacceptable.
Management and billing practices also surface as an important theme. While multiple reviewers note visible management-led improvements and a cosmetic facelift of the building, others describe troubling administrative behavior such as attempted out-of-pocket charges for physical therapy and an ambulance. There are also examples of poor care coordination: plan-of-care or family meetings being delayed (one cited example was a 6-day delay) and insufficient therapy sessions reported by some families. Together, these items suggest variability in operational consistency — some units or shifts may be functioning well while others are not.
Facility conditions are described in contrasting terms. Several reviewers praise recent cleaning efforts, organization, and lack of offensive odors. Conversely, other accounts emphasize the facility’s age and deferred maintenance (peeling wallpaper, outdated beds), which can affect perceptions of quality and comfort. Activities and amenities exist, and dining is a clear strength (food is repeatedly described as excellent), but both activities and some amenities appear underutilized or restricted due to COVID-related limitations, reducing opportunities for social engagement for residents.
In summary, the aggregated reviews reflect an institution in transition: tangible improvements in cleanliness, food, and some aspects of rehabilitation and management are offset by persistent and serious issues around staffing, safety, and consistency of clinical care. Families should be aware of the facility’s strengths — good food, clean common areas, organized staff in some shifts, and visible cosmetic upgrades — while also probing carefully about staffing levels, emergency procedures, medication safety, dementia care practices, infection-control or COVID-related activity limitations, and any potential extra charges. The mixed reports recommend site visits, careful review of recent inspection and staffing records, and direct conversations with nursing management to confirm that the improvements noted by some reviewers are enduring and that the safety and care gaps reported by others have been resolved.
