Overall sentiment across these reviews is strongly mixed and polarized: many reviewers offer high praise for the Courville at Manchester’s clinical strengths, compassionate caregivers, rehab outcomes, and attractive facility, while a substantial subset describes troubling lapses in cleanliness, safety, staffing, and management consistency. The prevailing pattern is one of two distinct experiences — families who encountered a thoughtful, skilled, and responsive team with excellent therapy results and families who encountered understaffing, safety or property problems, and inconsistent care.
Care quality is consistently described as excellent in many reviews, particularly for short-term rehabilitation and therapy. Multiple accounts highlight outstanding PT and OT care with measurable recovery (for example, patients recovering to unassisted walking), plus case management and insurance coordination praised as prompt and effective. Reviewers name specific staff (e.g., Tracey, responsive social workers) and teams as being knowledgeable, professional, and family-oriented. Many families report residents were happier, physically stronger, and treated with dignity — some say their loved ones were "treated like a princess" and that the facility provided relief and reassurance to relatives.
At the same time, several reviews detail serious clinical and safety concerns. Reports include unauthorized medication administration, failure to follow DNR instructions (including an account of CPR administered contrary to patient wishes), injuries not addressed appropriately, and — in one review — a death occurring during physical therapy. These are not isolated minor complaints; they are critical safety issues that some reviewers feel were handled poorly by staff and management. Multiple reviewers explicitly state their intent to report the facility to the state ombudsman or warn others against admission. This contrast means prospective families should weigh high-quality rehab capabilities against these reported safety incidents.
Staff and staffing patterns are central to the mixed impressions. Many reviews praise "wonderful," "compassionate," and "caring" staff across nursing, therapy, and social work, and several accounts commend leadership for reliable communication and consistent administration. Conversely, a recurring theme is understaffing and inconsistent staffing levels, contributing to delays in assistance (including restroom help and meal service), missed meals, and reduced supervision in common areas. Several reviewers describe low morale, high turnover, and negative staff behavior (eye-rolling, staff who "hate their jobs"), which appear correlated with declines in cleanliness and attentiveness in some reports. Where staffing is stable, continuity of care and positive outcomes are emphasized.
Facility, dining, and activities feedback is similarly split but with more consistently positive notes about the physical environment and programming. The building, rooms, and grounds are frequently described as beautiful and bright; many reviewers praise private rooms, pleasant smells, and scenic views. The dining room is called gorgeous and clean by several reviewers, with an "unbelievable" variety of food and an accommodating chef. Activities and the activities coordinator receive strong marks for keeping residents engaged; families recount well-run events including private gatherings (a private birthday lounge used successfully) and a homelike atmosphere. However, these positives are tempered by repeated complaints about carpet filthiness and insufficient routine cleaning in portions of the facility.
Property management and personal belongings is another notable concern cluster. Multiple reviewers report items missing or mishandled — notably hearing aids and eyeglasses — and at least one report of a deposit not returned. Laundry issues (clothes or laundry not removed or returned properly) and accusations of belongings gone missing add to family frustration and erode trust even where clinical care is praised.
Management, communication, and responsiveness appear to vary by situation. Several reviews emphasize transparent, open communication, prompt issue resolution, and a compassionate administration. These accounts indicate good coordination with insurance, responsive social work, and collaborative care planning. Conversely, other reviewers question management direction and consistency, linking leadership issues to staffing instability and cleanliness lapses. The overall picture is that leadership and communication practices have produced positive outcomes for many families but are inconsistent enough that others experienced worryingly poor results.
In summary, the Courville at Manchester garners strong endorsements for clinical rehabilitation, therapeutic staff, dining, activities, and the overall facility aesthetic. However, consistent and substantive concerns exist around cleanliness, staff consistency and morale, personal property security, missed or delayed care (meals, restroom assistance), and serious safety incidents in some reports. Prospective residents and families should consider site visits, ask specific questions about current staffing levels, turnover, supervision protocols, cleaning schedules, security for personal items, and policies for medication administration and DNR orders, and review recent state inspection and ombudsman records. The reviews collectively suggest that outcomes at the Courville can range from exemplary and life-changing to inadequate and unsafe depending on unit, staffing at the time of stay, and leadership responsiveness to concerns.
