The reviews present a mixed but concerning portrait of Wyomissing Health And Rehabilitation Center. Positive comments focus on cleanliness, several staff members being caring and competent, and a meaningful level of activities and community engagement (for example karaoke, community visits, and church services). Meals are generally described as acceptable and rooms are reported clean. Some reviewers noted that initial problems were resolved and at least one long-stay family member is satisfied with the care provided. These positives suggest the facility has strengths in routine housekeeping, some activity programming, and pockets of reliable caregiving.
However, the dominant and recurring theme is staffing and Alzheimer’s-specific care deficiencies. Multiple reviews explicitly state insufficient staffing in the Alzheimer’s unit and on the long-stay floor, with an acute shortage on weekends described as a 'skeleton crew.' Reviewers request more staff trained specifically in Alzheimer’s care and express that Alzheimer patients are not receiving activities appropriate to their needs. Staffing shortages are linked to inconsistent performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), and several comments indicate that staff are often too busy to assist residents when needed. This pattern points to systemic capacity and training gaps rather than isolated incidents.
Several reviews raise serious concerns about the quality and consistency of care. There are allegations of neglect serious enough to include a report of bed sores and a resident dying in pain, which is the most alarming claim in the feedback. Other reviewers describe a lack of basic courtesy from some employees (no greetings, no smiles) and even instances of staff using cursing or rude language. At the same time, other reviewers describe staff as friendly and caring, indicating an uneven experience: some residents and families receive good, competent care while others encounter troubling lapses. This variability suggests inconsistent staff performance or supervision across shifts, units, or different staff members.
On the facilities and programs side, the environment is characterized as clean but 'not fancy.' Activity programming is available and appreciated by some residents, but there are explicit gaps in Alzheimer-specific programming on the long-stay floor. Dining is described neutrally—meals are OK—but no strong praise for food quality emerges. Rooms and daily environment receive positive mention for cleanliness and basic comfort.
Cost and management concerns also appear. Several reviewers mention the high cost of stay, and at least one reviewer frames that cost as not matching the level of attention and staffing provided. Combined with the staffing, training, and alleged neglect issues, this raises questions about resource allocation and oversight. One positive signal is that some initial issues were corrected for at least one resident, suggesting management can respond in some cases, but the prevalence of repeated staffing and Alzheimer's-care complaints implies that corrective actions may be inconsistent or insufficient in scope.
In summary, reviewers consistently highlight cleanliness, some caring and competent staff, and available activities as strengths. The most significant and frequent concerns are insufficient and uneven staffing (particularly for Alzheimer’s care and on weekends), lack of Alzheimer-specific activities and training, inconsistent ADL assistance, occasional unprofessional behavior by staff, and serious allegations of neglect in at least one case. The feedback points to a facility with measurable strengths in housekeeping and some caregiving, but also with systemic problems in staffing levels, training for dementia care, and consistency of resident support that management would need to address to ensure uniformly safe and respectful care—especially for residents with Alzheimer’s or other high-dependency needs.
