Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed to negative, with clear strengths in rehabilitative services and certain compassionate staff members, but significant and recurring concerns about communication, basic care consistency, facility upkeep, and management responsiveness. Several reviewers praise the admissions process (notably an admissions staff member named Jonathan) and describe dedicated caregivers and strong therapy outcomes. However, multiple more serious complaints about neglect, poor hygiene response, and systemic communication failures weigh heavily on the overall impression.
Care quality and clinical outcomes: Reviews highlight two very distinct patterns. On the positive side, the facility appears capable of delivering effective short-term rehabilitative care — reviewers report excellent nursing care and rehabilitative therapy that produced tangible recoveries, such as a patient regaining the ability to walk with a cane and regaining self-feeding ability. The rehab area and therapy team are repeatedly called out as strengths, and the recent remodel seems to have improved therapy and communal areas.
On the negative side, clinical and custodial care appear inconsistent. There are alarming reports of neglect (one account of a resident left in feces for hours) and frequent long waits for basic assistance (reports of up to 45-minute response times). Several reviewers describe infrequent checks on residents and delayed responses to call lights, particularly around shift changes. These incidents suggest gaps in staffing levels, staff training, or supervision and are major red flags for anyone considering long-term placement.
Staffing and communication: A dominant theme is poor communication and management follow-through. Families report unresponsiveness to phone calls, a lack of routine updates from therapists and physicians, only a single conference call that was not followed by additional updates, and care managers who did not follow up on concerns. Some reviewers said staff were polite but not proactive. There are also comments about staffing composition — more CNAs than RNs and insufficient RN-led proactive care — which, combined with the reported missed care events, indicates organizational or staffing model issues that affect both safety and family confidence.
Facilities and amenities: The facility has undergone a remodel and reviewers appreciate the updated rehab area and dining room aesthetic, and there is availability of private and shared rooms. However, maintenance and comfort issues are repeatedly cited: broken televisions, lack of in-room entertainment (no radio or TV in some rooms), freezing-cold rooms, and uncomfortable beds. These physical environment problems lower resident comfort and indicate inconsistent maintenance or HVAC issues.
Dining and activities: Several reviewers complained about food quality — described as horrible or served cold — which undermines the otherwise positive comment about a nice dining room. Activity and transportation options appear limited; there is no on-site bus for field trips, and COVID visitation restrictions further limited family contact for some. The combination of poor food and limited activities can negatively affect quality of life for longer-stay residents.
Management, transfer processes, and costs: Management practices drew strong criticism. Families reported mishandled or prolonged transfers, misrepresentation about required notice periods (a 48-hour claim that did not reflect reality), and general lack of follow-up from managers. Personal belongings being left unattended for extended periods (a suitcase left on the floor for two weeks) points to weak admission/transfer protocols. Multiple reviewers also described the cost as excessive relative to the level and consistency of care provided, using phrases such as 'outrageous rent.'
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews paint a facility capable of strong short-term rehabilitation results but inconsistent in custodial nursing, communication, and basic resident comfort and dignity. If considering Regency Gresham Nursing & Rehab Center, prospective residents and families should verify staffing ratios (RN coverage vs CNA levels), ask for specifics about communication protocols (how often families will receive updates from PTs, nurses, and physicians), check in-room amenities and heating, and inquire about incident reporting and transfer handling procedures. For short-term rehab where an active therapy plan and motivated therapy team are present, the facility has documented successes. For long-term or high-dependency care, the reported neglect incidents, poor response times, and management shortcomings suggest caution unless those issues can be directly addressed by management during a visit or contract negotiation.
In summary, Regency Gresham shows meaningful strengths in admissions, therapy, and some compassionate staff, but recurrent and serious negative reports around neglect, communication failures, environmental maintenance, and management responsiveness significantly temper those positives. Families should perform in-person visits, ask detailed operational questions, and seek written commitments about communication and staffing before making placement decisions.
