Overall sentiment across reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise the facility’s physical environment, activities, dining, and several compassionate staff members, while an equally large set of reviews report serious care-quality concerns, management problems, and inconsistent staffing. The building and amenities receive consistently positive mention — reviewers describe a beautiful, clean facility with large rooms, private bathrooms, in-room TVs, outside views, an accessible/clear floor layout (often described as a star-pattern), and attention to communal activity spaces. Memory-care offerings and activity programming (especially art programs) are repeatedly called out as strengths; the activities director (Tonya) is specifically mentioned for going out of her way and art supplies are provided. Several families also reported good food with choices and therapists providing PT/OT that produced measurable walking improvements for some residents.
Care quality and direct nursing/caregiving are the areas with the greatest divergence. Multiple reviews describe “topnotch,” “outstanding,” and “loving” nursing and aide care, and a few families said management kept them well informed. Conversely, a significant number of reviews recount neglect: missed medication deliveries or families having to bring meds from home, slow call responses, prolonged periods without hydration, missed baths/showers, infrequent hygiene checks, soiled clothes/diapers left on residents, and refusal or failure to assist with mobility or toileting. These reports are serious and describe prolonged neglect for some residents, particularly those who are non-ambulatory or highly dependent. Several reviewers explicitly recommend home care for non-ambulatory residents as a result.
Staff behavior and consistency are another dominant theme. Many frontline staff members are described as friendly, helpful, responsive and kind — with some nurses and aides singled out for praise (for example, Nurse Margaret is named positively). At the same time, other caregivers are characterized as uncaring, distracted (feeding aides talking during meals), or even hostile. Burnout and understaffing are repeatedly cited as likely contributors to inconsistent care. Families report both excellent, attentive staff and, in other instances, staff who would “say what we wanted to hear” but not follow through. This variability suggests uneven training, supervision, or staffing levels across shifts.
Management and administrative practice generate some of the strongest contrasts in the reviews. A few reviewers praise an administrator (described as hardworking, honest, kind, and a licensed social worker) and note good communication from management. In stark contrast, other reviewers describe administrators who are confrontational, dismissive, or unavailable, with at least one reviewer calling an administrator “hateful,” accusing them of blaming others, calling the reviewer a liar, and storming out of meetings. Several families perceive a managerial emphasis on the facility’s appearance and billing rather than on systematic quality checks and resident well-being. Multiple accounts suggest that changes in management coincided with a perceived decline in care quality ("great place in the past, negative changes under new management").
Therapy and rehabilitation are available and, for some residents, effective: daily PT/OT was credited with improving walking ability. However, a few reviewers described therapy as limited or not sufficiently intensive. Dining is mostly reported positively — several families noted good meals and that residents loved the food — although distracted feeding aides and occasional staff yelling during mealtime were also mentioned.
Safety and operational concerns appear repeatedly: medication administration inconsistencies, slow call-button responses, understaffing, poor hygiene practices, and hydration lapses. These are not isolated small complaints but recurring themes that directly affect resident health and dignity. Noise in hallways and COVID-related visitation restrictions were mentioned as additional quality-of-life issues for some families.
Patterns and recommendations: the reviews indicate that experiences at this center vary widely, often depending on which staff and administrators are on duty and recent changes in leadership or staffing. Prospective residents and families should do an in-person tour, ask specifically about staff-to-resident ratios, how medication administration and reconciliation are handled, fall-prevention and mobility assistance policies, how hygiene and incontinence care are managed, and what oversight/quality audits are conducted. Ask to speak with current family members of residents and request recent inspection or staffing records. For highly dependent, non-ambulatory residents, the reports of neglect and restricted mobility assistance are a red flag and warrant extra caution.
In summary, College Park Rehabilitation And Care Center presents a well-kept, attractive environment with strong activity programming and some highly caring staff and therapists. However, substantial and repeated negative reports about hygiene neglect, medication and hydration lapses, understaffing, and inconsistent or hostile management create serious concerns. The facility may offer excellent care for some residents, particularly those in memory-care programs or those benefiting from rehab services, but the variability in care and leadership suggests families should conduct thorough, targeted due diligence before choosing this facility, especially for residents with high medical or mobility needs.
