Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized and characterized by stark inconsistency. Multiple reviewers praise Matlock Place Health & Rehabilitation Center for its clean appearance, helpful admissions team, and pockets of very good clinical and rehabilitative care: examples include daily physical therapy, on-site X-rays, timely doctor visits for some patients, and staff who ‘‘go above and beyond’’ for individual residents. Several families explicitly recommend the facility based on positive experiences with specific caregivers or therapy teams. COVID precautions and some engaging activities such as bingo were also noted positively, and multiple reviewers described rooms and grounds as clean and well-maintained.
However, the most frequent and serious themes are negative and safety-related. A large number of reviewers describe inconsistent care—where early impressions (helpful admissions, clean facility) deteriorated into neglectful or unsafe care. Recurrent complaints include ignored or long-delayed responses to call lights, inadequate assistance with toileting and bathing, patients left in soiled clothing or linens for hours, and failure to provide basic hygiene (no showers, no teeth brushing). Several reviews allege medication errors, withholding of medications (including pain or nausea meds), and delayed recognition or response to acute medical issues, sometimes resulting in ER transfers, hospitalizations, or worse outcomes. There are multiple reports of falls and delayed or absent emergency response (ambulance or 911 not called promptly), and at least some accounts cite very troubling physical handling by staff (shoving or roughly placing patients into beds). These accounts point to potentially systemic issues in training, staffing levels, supervision, and emergency protocols.
Staffing and management problems recur throughout the reviews. Reviewers frequently cite short staffing—especially on weekends and after hours—which contributes to long call light wait times, missed medication timing, and delayed transfers to higher levels of care. Language barriers with some staff members and gaps in after-hours phone access or responsiveness by administration are also mentioned. Families report poor communication from leadership: failure to notify POAs or families about emergencies, failure to share lab results, and a sense that complaints were not taken seriously or were ignored. Discharge processes were described as confusing and delayed in multiple accounts. While some individual nurses and caregivers were described as dedicated and compassionate, reviewers consistently report unpredictable care depending on which staff are on duty.
Dining and daily living issues are a mixed but notable area of concern. A few reviewers praised meals, accommodated diets, and specific items that residents liked; others complained about consistently poor food, cold breakfasts, incorrect meal orders, and shortages of requested medications like Ambien. Dining problems are mentioned alongside broader concerns about patient dignity and respect—residents left without assistance while hungry or in unsanitary conditions, and reports that patients were not oriented to their rooms or shown how to use call lights (a critical issue cited for visually impaired patients).
Rehabilitation services are another area with mixed reports: some families reported excellent, frequent therapy with measurable benefit; others described inadequate rehabilitation and premature recognition of inability to care for patients, prompting transfers to other facilities. This split further reinforces the theme of inconsistency—outcomes appear highly dependent on the care team assigned and timing. Positive reviews about rehab and therapeutic engagement indicate the facility can deliver good therapy when staffing and oversight align, but negative reports suggest gaps in quality control and continuity.
Safety, dignity, and regulatory concerns emerge repeatedly and are particularly serious. Multiple reviewers describe instances where residents were left soiled, ignored after falls, or exposed to unsafe roommate situations (disoriented patients left unsupervised), and at least one reviewer alleges an illegal restriction on a service animal. Complaints about missing safety rails, patient-to-patient aggression, and unaddressed infections or wounds point to potential lapses in standard safety protocols. Several reviewers reported moving their loved ones to other facilities after experiencing these issues.
In summary, Matlock Place shows a clear divide: the facility is capable of providing clean accommodations, attentive admissions, and strong rehab care in many cases, and there are individual staff members who are praised for compassion and competence. At the same time, numerous and repeated reports of neglect, medication and communication failures, unsafe handling, and poor management responsiveness pose serious concerns. The dominant pattern is inconsistency—excellent care for some residents and dangerous lapses for others—suggesting systemic problems with staffing levels, training, supervision, and complaint resolution. For families considering Matlock Place, key questions to pursue would include current staffing ratios (especially nights/weekends), emergency/transfer protocols, staff training and language capabilities, call-light response times, hygiene and incontinence care procedures, how complaints are handled and escalated, and direct observations of individualized care during different shifts. Addressing these operational issues would be necessary to reconcile the facility’s strong attributes (cleanliness, some excellent staff and rehab capability) with the substantial safety and dignity concerns raised by many reviewers.
