Overall impression: Reviews of Workmens Circle Multicare Center are highly mixed and polarized. Many families praise the clinical nursing staff, rehabilitation services, and portions of the physical plant, while others report troubling instances of neglect, poor cleanliness, security lapses, and administrative failures. The result is a facility that appears to deliver strong care in certain units, shifts, or for certain residents, while failing to meet basic standards in other areas. That variability is the single most consistent theme across the feedback.
Care quality and clinical services: Clinical and rehabilitative care receive both the highest praise and the most severe criticism. Multiple reviewers use words like "phenomenal" and "attentive" to describe RNs and nursing staff; rehabilitation services and the large rehab area are repeatedly cited as strengths. At the same time, there are alarming reports of poor clinical oversight — falls not being managed, a resident falling multiple times within 48 hours, a new stroke shortly after admission, and claims that the ER is used as a dumping ground. There are also multiple allegations of neglect (residents left in feces/urine for hours) and even abuse in the most extreme accounts. This split suggests that clinical competence exists but may not be applied consistently across all patients, units, or shifts.
Staff, communication, and management: Communication and staffing are recurring weak points. Some family members report staff who are responsive, communicative, and keep families informed, while others encounter language barriers, unresponsive social work, and staff who lack training in policies and procedures. Night staffing is a particular concern — understaffing, noisy staff after hours, and alarms/beeping in rooms are cited. Administrative responsiveness is also questioned: reviewers report ignored complaints, ineffective administrators, and confusion around COVID protocols. Several accounts describe families feeling blocked or "held hostage" when trying to remove a loved one, reflecting a breakdown in family–facility relations and in complaint resolution processes.
Facilities and environment: Many reviews describe the property as newly renovated, bright, with lots of natural light, colorful areas, and good heating — attributes that contribute positively to resident comfort. The campus is large with an extensive rehab area and an under-construction atrium, but its size also causes disorientation for some visitors. Conversely, multiple reviewers report dirty rooms, unclean dishes and cafeterias, and pest sightings (mice), indicating inconsistent housekeeping standards. Furniture and beds in some rooms were noted as in need of upgrades, and there are complaints about double-occupancy rooms leading to cramped conditions.
Dining and dietary: Dining impressions are mixed. Several reviewers complain about poor food quality and cafeteria-style meals; a few say food is average and that replacements are available when complaints are raised. A strict dietary program is mentioned as a positive for some residents who need it, but food quality and dining cleanliness emerge as frequent negative points.
Activities and social engagement: Reports on activities are contradictory. Some families praise an active schedule and good activities programming, while others — particularly those with relatives in memory care — describe a lack of visible activities, no holiday decorations, and insufficient social interaction or arts-and-crafts programming. COVID-related shutdowns are cited as a reason for limited activities in some cases, but others imply a longer-term deficit in memory-care engagement.
Safety, security, and personal belongings: Multiple serious concerns appear around resident safety and personal belongings. Theft and stolen items (including phones) are reported, and several reviewers expressed safety/security worries. Allegations of physical and mental abuse, lying in soiled conditions, and long waits for assistance constitute major red flags that families should weigh heavily.
Patterns and likely explanations: The dominant pattern in the reviews is inconsistency. Strengths (clinical nursing, rehabilitation, renovations, pleasant public spaces) coexist with systemic problems (housekeeping gaps, staff training and staffing shortages, administrative indifference, and safety issues). Several reviewers explicitly mention affordability-based inequity — implying that residents paying privately or with higher-level placement may receive better care than those on Medicaid — which could explain some of the variability. Shift-to-shift and unit-to-unit differences (memory care vs. general skilled nursing vs. rehab) also appear likely.
Bottom line: Workmens Circle Multicare Center demonstrates clear capabilities — especially in nursing and rehabilitation — and has physical attributes (renovations, light, rehab space) that many families appreciate. However, the frequency and severity of negative reports — including neglect, falls with poor management, cleanliness issues, theft, and ineffective administration — are substantial. Prospective families should expect uneven performance, and should probe unit-level staffing, housekeeping protocols, fall-prevention measures, security safeguards, memory-care programming, and administrative responsiveness when evaluating the facility. The mixed reviews suggest that outcomes may depend heavily on placement within the facility, the specific care team assigned, and the willingness/ability of management to respond to problems when they arise.
