Overall impression: Reviews for Cherrydale Health & Rehabilitation Center are sharply mixed, with strong polarization between accounts that praise rehabilitative care and attentive staff and accounts that describe serious lapses in basic care, cleanliness, and management. Several reviewers report very positive clinical outcomes—particularly around physical and occupational therapy, successful recoveries (knee surgery, stroke), attentive nursing, and effective pain and medication management—while numerous other reviewers report neglectful and unsafe conditions that suggest systemic problems in staffing, hygiene, and administrative practices.
Care quality and rehabilitation: A recurring positive theme is the facility’s ability to deliver effective rehabilitation. Multiple reviews describe daily therapy, competent PT/OT, and measurable progress (for example, helping a resident walk again and supporting discharge home). Some families emphasize attentive nurses and clear medication explanations, and a few single-provider praises (an "amazing nurse practitioner") stand out. Conversely, several reviews allege severe clinical failings: medication errors, misidentification of nurses, missed medical appointments, and missed or delayed critical treatments (late dialysis readiness, alleged failure to call an ambulance for a traumatic brain injury). These conflicting reports point to inconsistent clinical performance—strong rehab services for some patients, and potentially dangerous lapses for others.
Staffing, professionalism, and behavior: Staffing issues are a dominant negative theme. Many reviewers report understaffed shifts, staff described as lazy or unprofessional, slow or non-functioning call-button responses, and aides who rush tasks (reports of slamming meals down). Some positive reviews highlight caring, friendly, and helpful staff; however, negative accounts include loud, unprofessional complaining about patients, staff disorganization, and allegations of neglect (leaving residents in feces, failing to provide toileting assistance). The pattern suggests high variability in staff performance—some teams provide compassionate and effective care, while others appear overworked, undertrained, or indifferent.
Facilities, cleanliness, and infection control: Reviews conflict sharply on facility condition. Several reviewers describe the center as clean, pleasant-smelling, and well-maintained with spacious private rooms and large windows. At the same time, a strong cluster of negative reviews details unsanitary conditions: bugs, flies, roaches, dirty diapers in trash, foul odors, and overall "gross" interiors. These accounts also mention food served with flies and general hygiene lapses. The divergence suggests inconsistency in housekeeping and infection-control practices, or variability across units/shifts, creating substantial concern for families emphasizing cleanliness and safety.
Dining and nutrition: Comments about food are mixed. Some reviewers say meals are provided consistently and look appealing, and one review notes dietitian attention to weight. Others report poor food quality, lack of basic utensils (no silverware), food contamination (flies), and aides who handle meal service roughly. Nutrition and mealtime dignity appear to be inconsistent experiences.
Activities, social programming, and environment: Positive reviews note friendly program organizers, parties, and social activities that contribute to a welcoming environment for some residents. Yet other reviewers report a lack of activities, residents not participating, and feelings of boredom or isolation. This inconsistency indicates that while social programming exists, it may not be accessible or engaging for all residents.
Management, admissions, and administration: Several reviews raise specific administrative concerns. Multiple reviewers allege aggressive or questionable admissions practices—pressure to pay thousands in advance, attempts by a business manager to force contracts, and general complaints about "admissions scams." Management is also described as blaming staff or being unresponsive when problems are raised. These reports create distrust and suggest families should scrutinize admissions paperwork and billing practices carefully.
Safety, logistics, and discharge planning: Safety-related concerns are prominent in negative reviews: delayed dialysis, missed appointments, transportation failures, and allegations of not arranging emergency transport for critical patients. Discharge planning is also described as difficult by some families. In contrast, other reviewers credit the facility with effective discharge support after successful rehab. Again, the evidence points to inconsistent operational performance with potentially serious consequences.
Notable patterns and takeaways: The most consistent pattern is variability: many families had positive, even exemplary experiences centered on rehabilitation success and attentive care, while a significant number experienced neglect, unsanitary conditions, medication or administrative errors, and aggressive admissions practices. Issues like understaffing, broken or slow-call systems, and cleanliness failures recur often enough to be considered systemic risks rather than isolated incidents. Staffing and management practices appear to be central drivers of the divergent experiences—when staff are present, professional, and organized, outcomes and impressions are positive; when understaffing, poor management, or low staff morale prevail, reviewers report serious problems.
For families evaluating this facility: Reviews suggest that outcomes can vary widely depending on unit, shift, or timing. Families who are considering Cherrydale should (based on the patterns in reviews) verify staffing levels, inspect cleanliness personally, confirm how call buttons and toileting assistance are handled, review medication-safety procedures, ask for references about admissions and billing policies, and confirm coordination for medical transport and dialysis if applicable. The reviews provide both strong evidence of capable rehabilitation and alarming reports of neglect and hygiene failures; due diligence and direct, specific questions to facility leadership are warranted before a placement decision.
