Overall impression: Reviews for College Park Rehabilitation Center are mixed, with many families praising the rehabilitation services and individual staff members, while a notable portion of reviewers raise concerns about staffing, cleanliness, food quality, and communication. Positive experiences tend to cluster around therapy outcomes and specific caring staff, while negative experiences are often related to operational and consistency problems.
Care quality and therapy: The most consistently praised aspect is the rehabilitation program. Multiple reviewers reported good progress with physical therapy and speech therapy, noting that therapists were encouraging, gentle, and effective. Several reviewers specifically described meaningful functional improvements and expressed willingness to recommend the facility for rehab. Wound care and certain medical interventions were acknowledged as being handled well in many cases. However, there are also reports of care gaps — for example, missed dressing changes, ignored digestion/medical complaints, and occasional unaddressed injuries — indicating variability in the day-to-day clinical care.
Staff: Staff behavior is a major theme with a split sentiment. Many reviews describe staff as friendly, generous, helpful, and attentive, and nurses are frequently called out positively. Several families appreciated clear explanations and supportive interactions from therapists, aides, and administrators. Conversely, there are repeated accounts of rude or unprofessional staff members (CNAs and some nurses/therapy staff), single problematic employees, and instances where callers or family members felt accused or dismissed. Understaffing and high patient-to-nurse ratios were commonly reported and likely contribute to delayed responses, slow nighttime service, and variability in the quality of interpersonal care.
Facilities and cleanliness: Opinions on cleanliness are inconsistent. Many reviewers reported a clean facility, appropriate equipment, and well-maintained rooms. Still, a substantial number of reviews document cleanliness problems: bathroom-like odors, urine smell, urine on patients, items and debris under beds, floors not swept daily, bed-making and housekeeping lapses, and ceiling/curtain maintenance issues. These hygiene concerns are significant because they directly affect perceptions of safety and dignity for residents.
Dining and nutrition: Dining is another polarized area. Some reviewers praised meals that met dietary needs, hot meals, and a good menu. Others described the food as terrible, repetitive, unappealing, and specifically noted issues such as Ensure not being provided, mashed potatoes with gravy problems, and sent-back meals. Water pitchers being empty and inconsistent dietitian/cook consultation were raised, showing variability in nutrition services and meal delivery consistency.
Communication and administration: Communication received mixed feedback. Several families appreciated good communication, responsive administration, and clear updates. Others reported poor phone responsiveness, no proactive calls to families or residents when requested, inconsistent board updates, and difficulty getting timely information. Administrative responsiveness was cited positively in some cases where issues were addressed, but the inconsistent application of follow-up and updates remains a recurring concern.
Safety, medication, and clinical oversight: Safety issues surfaced in reviews describing medication mishandling — including denial of prescribed medication — poor hygiene maintenance (unclean mouths, catheter leaks), and inconsistent wound/bandage care. Reviewers also noted a lack of specialized staff in areas like psychiatry, neurology, and oncology, and infrequent physician visits, which could impact care for residents with complex medical needs. Several mentions of Medicare discharge/Medicaid application complications and readmittance of past patients point to administrative complexity around transitions and coverage.
Activities and social environment: Activities were available and appreciated where present (bingo, painting, exercise). COVID-19 restrictions limited programming for some residents, causing disappointment. The facility is described as hospital-like by some reviewers with many wheelchair users and shared rooms, which some families found appropriate for rehab but others found less comforting for long-term stays.
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews show a facility capable of delivering effective rehabilitation and exhibiting many caring staff, but with inconsistent performance in housekeeping, food services, communication, and staffing levels. The most actionable patterns are: (1) address staffing shortages to reduce response times and variability in care; (2) standardize cleaning and hygiene procedures to eliminate odors and ensure regular bed/linen maintenance; (3) improve medication handling and clinical oversight to avoid missed treatments and denied prescriptions; (4) stabilize dining offerings and ensure nutritional supplements (e.g., Ensure) are available as ordered; and (5) enhance family communication protocols (regular updates, call-backs, and consistent board notices).
Bottom line: Families seeking strong, motivated rehabilitation services may find College Park Rehabilitation Center delivers positive therapy outcomes and has many compassionate staff. However, prospective residents and families should be aware of recurring concerns about staffing levels, cleanliness/odors, food quality, and inconsistent communication. Those considering the facility should ask specific questions about staffing ratios, medication protocols, dining accommodations, hygiene/housekeeping schedules, and how the facility manages family updates and specialist care to ensure the resident's needs will be consistently met.
