The reviews for Nansemond Pointe Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center present a consistent, strongly negative overall sentiment with multiple recurring themes of poor care, unsafe staffing, and concerning clinical incidents. Across the summaries, family members and residents report a facility where staff behavior and responsiveness are major problems: caregivers are described as rude, lazy, inattentive, and prone to passing responsibility to others. Short staffing and unacceptable nurse-to-patient ratios are repeatedly cited as root causes of many deficiencies, contributing to long delays in responding to call bells, delayed showers and diaper changes, and untimely patient checks.
Clinical care quality is a prominent area of concern. Reviews allege delayed or missed medication administration, inadequate wound care that reportedly led to bedsores, and serious medical outcomes including urinary tract infections and sepsis. Several specific failures are described, such as not flushing a catheter, not changing a chest tube bag, and faulty bed rails — all of which indicate lapses in basic clinical oversight and equipment/safety management. These types of incidents, combined with long nurse response times (examples of 45 minutes to multiple hours), portray a facility with potentially dangerous care gaps for medically vulnerable residents.
Cleanliness and basic daily care are also repeatedly criticized. Multiple reports cite filthy rooms, dirty linens, beds left without sheets, and trays that were not delivered or food served cold. This extends beyond occasional lapses to a pattern of minimal attention to hygiene and comfort. Reviewers explicitly describe patients being left unclean and rooms unsanitary, which raises infection-control concerns when coupled with the reported clinical issues. Families also describe poor support during meals (no help to eat) and an overall impression of minimal hands-on care.
Communication, documentation, and administrative practices are additional problem areas. Reviewers note slow provision of health information, delayed medical records (around a 30-day lag), and unhelpful or unsympathetic social workers. There are also troubling reports of a request to sign a "non-sue" waiver and a perceived emphasis on patient payment over quality of care. In at least one instance, a personal item (a phone) was reported stolen and staff either denied the incident or misrepresented receipt of the item, suggesting problems with honesty and incident handling procedures.
Dining, activities, and ancillary services receive negative mentions as well: late and cold meals, trays not delivered, and therapists/social workers described as unsatisfactory or unresponsive. Hospice care is mentioned in the reviews but not in a clearly positive light; rather, it appears within the same context of inadequate attention and poor communication. Multiple reviewers explicitly state they would not recommend the facility and advise reporting to authorities in severe cases, emphasizing the depth of dissatisfaction.
Taken together, the pattern in these reviews indicates systemic issues rather than isolated incidents: pervasive understaffing, poor staff professionalism and competency, lapses in clinical care and safety, inadequate hygiene and housekeeping, weak communication and record-keeping, and administrative practices that frustrate families. The frequency and severity of the reported problems — including alleged medical harm (UTI, sepsis), safety equipment failures, and theft with denial — suggest that prospective residents and families should exercise caution, seek detailed, verifiable information from the facility, and consider alternative providers. For existing residents, the reviews suggest close oversight, frequent visitation, and documented reporting of incidents to external oversight bodies if problems persist.
