The reviews for Cedarwood Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center are highly polarized, producing a mix of strong praise and serious complaints. A substantial portion of reviewers describe deeply positive experiences: compassionate, attentive nursing and therapy staff; exceptionally clean, odor-free facilities maintained by dedicated housekeeping and floor tech teams; welcoming front desk and some administrative personnel; and heartening personal stories of staff going above and beyond (several reviewers named specific caregivers such as Rhonda, Bobbi, and Abbie). Many families and residents reported feeling safe, supported, and well cared for—particularly on certain floors or under specific shifts—while a number of reviewers noted improvements after leadership changes and recommended the facility for short-term rehab or long-term care when the right staff are on duty.
However, the negative reports are frequent and severe enough to be central to the overall picture. The dominant operational complaint is chronic understaffing: nurses and CNAs are frequently described as scarce, which reviewers link directly to long call-bell response times (including reports of calls unanswered for over an hour), missed or delayed medication administration, and basic care omissions. Several reviewers related alarming medication-related issues: incorrect meds, delayed meds, and medication trays or pills left unattended on carts. Hygiene problems recur as well—residents reportedly went days without showers (one account mentions no shower until day five), were placed in soiled linens, and experienced meals or trays left in rooms for hours. Some reviews recount safety issues (needles left on trays, unattended medications) and incidents raising concerns about neglect or abuse, including reports of bullying by aides, catheter bags left full leading to infections, and allegations of staff intentionally removing call bells.
Communication and administration are other recurring fault lines. Multiple reviews cite poor communication—phones not answered, families not updated, missed appointments, and confusion about insurance—while some reviewers say administrative staff were unhelpful or even attempted to remove negative reviews. There are also accusations of falsified documentation and inadequate managerial follow-through when serious problems arise. At the same time, other families praise responsive management and an acting administrator who addressed issues; several reviewers explicitly noted improvements after a change in leadership, suggesting variable performance tied to current management practices.
Dining and therapy feedback is mixed but consistent in theme: the therapy department is often praised and credited with positive outcomes, whereas the dining experience is repeatedly criticized for poor quality, cold or delayed meals, and inconsistent meal service. Multiple reviewers described forced or rushed feeding without adequate fluids offered. Facility cleanliness receives overwhelmingly positive mentions—clean rooms, nice common areas, holiday decorations, and prompt housekeeping—but isolated sanitation failures (soiled sheets, uncollected trays) appear frequently enough to merit concern because they correlate with staffing lapses.
A notable pattern is the high variability of experience by unit, shift, or individual staff members. Many reviewers contrast exceptional care on a particular floor or by specific staff with very troubling experiences elsewhere in the building. This inconsistency means families report very different outcomes depending on timing and staffing: when experienced, attentive staff are present, care is described as excellent; when staffing is thin or particular aides are assigned, reviewers describe neglectful or dangerous conditions. Several reviews also include allegations of staff theft and safety concerns, which heighten trust issues for some families.
In summary, Cedarwood appears to be a facility with the potential to provide high-quality, compassionate care—especially in therapy and on floors/staffing patterns that are well-supported—but it also has systemic risks tied to staffing levels, medication management, sanitation lapses, communication failures, and inconsistent administration. These issues have led to some serious allegations (neglect, improper catheter care, falsified records) that prospective residents and families should weigh carefully. If considering Cedarwood, visitors should ask specific questions about current staffing ratios, medication administration procedures, recent quality audits, infection-control practices, and changes implemented by new leadership; request to meet the regular nursing leadership and key caregivers for the resident's unit; and monitor call response times, hygiene routines, and meal service during visits. The large divergence in reviews suggests the facility can be excellent under the right conditions but carries notable risks when staffing and oversight lapse.
