Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: many families praise the facility’s physical environment, some clinical staff, and therapy/activities, while an alarming number report severe care deficiencies and safety concerns. Positive comments consistently cite a pleasant, clean campus with a large dining area, onsite chef, shuttle service, laundry/linen services, weekly cleaning, gym and activity spaces, and private/spacious rooms. Several reviewers highlight effective therapy programs, a strong nurse practitioner, helpful social work interventions (arranging home health, ordering equipment), and individual CNAs or nurses who provided compassionate, attentive care.
However, the most frequent and serious themes are neglect, inconsistent caregiving, and lapses in medical and safety oversight. Multiple reviews describe residents being left soiled or in urine/feces for extended periods, teeth and hygiene skipped, wet sheets and dressings left unchanged, and pressure injuries/bedsores — all indicators of inadequate basic nursing care. There are also reports of significant medical issues being ignored or delayed (pneumonia, leaking tubes, bleeding), unauthorized or inappropriate medication administration, and overmedication that appeared to sedate residents. Several families experienced transfers, room moves, or lack of notification about critical events (including death), and some reported missing or stolen personal items. These accounts raise concerns about both staffing levels and clinical supervision.
Staffing and culture appear to be a major driver of the variability in experiences. Many reviewers note a shortage of CNAs and nurses, high turnover, and an observable difference between staff who are compassionate and those perceived as uncaring or ‘‘in it for a paycheck.’’ Where families were actively involved or advocated for their loved ones, care tended to be better; where family oversight was absent, several reviews describe unacceptable neglect. Administration and certain leaders (including a named Director of Nursing) are praised in some reviews for being accessible and responsive, but other families report poor communication, unhelpful social work support, and discharge planning failures. This inconsistency suggests uneven management follow‑through and that successful outcomes often depend on individual staff members and engaged family advocates.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback: the facility has an onsite chef and many say meals are adequate or good, yet others complain about repetitive menus (frequent grilled cheese), ignored dietary restrictions, and delays in meeting specific dietary needs. Activity programming, therapy groups, bingo, and church services are listed as strengths by many, supporting social engagement and rehabilitation for some residents.
Safety, accountability, and facility condition are additional focal points. While common areas and many rooms are described as clean and well maintained, some rooms are dated and there are serious reports including bed bugs, theft of clothing, and staff aggression. There are claims of inadequate medical oversight (doctors not checking residents, aides administering meds without authorization), transfers causing injury, and rehospitalizations — all of which suggest the facility may not be appropriate for higher‑acuity patients who require close clinical management. Several families explicitly recommend reporting the facility or shutting it down, indicating the depth of concern among those who experienced severe lapses.
In summary, Crestview Court offers many facility‑level strengths: clean public spaces, good therapy and activities for some residents, supportive amenities, and examples of caring staff and responsive leadership. Simultaneously, there are multiple, specific, and serious complaints about neglectful care, inconsistent staff performance, clinical oversights, poor communication, and safety issues. Prospective families should be aware of this polarization: outcomes appear highly dependent on staff assignment, time of stay, and family involvement. Recommendations for prospects include direct observation of care during multiple visits, questioning staffing ratios and supervision, asking about incident reporting and medication policies, verifying how dietary needs are handled, and arranging for an advocate or frequent family oversight if choosing the facility. For current families experiencing problems, documenting incidents, escalating to nursing leadership and administration, and reporting severe issues to regulators may be necessary given the nature of the allegations.
