The reviews for Upland Rehabilitation & Care Center present a strongly mixed picture with sharp contrasts: many families describe compassionate, effective care—especially in rehabilitation services—while a sizable number of reviewers report serious care failures, neglect, and management problems. A recurring theme is variability: some residents experience attentive CNAs, LPNs, and physical/occupational therapists who produce measurable improvement (walk recovery, successful discharges, effective trache/RT care), whereas others describe rude or neglectful staff, missed care tasks, and clinical lapses that led to harm or readmission.
Staff and clinical care: The facility receives repeated praise for individual caregivers and therapy teams. Physical and occupational therapy staff are the most consistently praised group; reviewers credit them with meaningful functional gains and fast-paced rehab programs. Many reviewers also singled out specific nurses and CNAs as trustworthy, professional, and caring. Counterbalancing this, however, are frequent reports of understaffing and overworked nursing personnel that directly impact care: missed medication doses, late or missing wound-care, delayed responses to call lights, residents left long periods unattended (commode or bathroom), and instances of bedsores or infections attributed to lack of repositioning or attention. Wound care is described as excellent in some cases (daily care and weekly physician rounds) but critically deficient in others (unresolved wound vac alarms, wound progression, or lack of treatment). Medication administration problems and documentation concerns appear in multiple reviews.
Safety, hygiene, and neglect concerns: Several reviews allege severe lapses in hygiene and monitoring—examples include an unsanitary feces-wipe incident, staff not washing hands, residents left freezing or without blankets, and a range of neglect reports culminating in cases with hospitalization or poor outcomes. Complaints about neglect also include reports of inadequate COVID control (unmasked visitors, poor checks) and claims of infection spread. While some reviewers emphasize a generally clean and remodeled environment, others report urine smells, dirty facilities, or heat issues in rooms. These divergent accounts suggest inconsistent practice standards across shifts or wings.
Admissions, communication, and management: Communication problems are common in the reviews. Families cite poor handoffs from hospitals/ERs to the facility, unresponsive admissions and case management staff, difficulty reaching nurses by phone, and confusing or opaque billing/cost conversations. Several reviewers accused management and case managers of pressure to discharge, blame-shifting when adverse events occur, or focusing unduly on insurance and reimbursement. There are also reports to outside bodies (BBB, state complaints) in relation to alleged poor care. Conversely, some families had positive interactions with social workers and case staff, indicating variability in administrative responsiveness.
Dining and nutrition: Many reviewers appreciated the food and called it a strength, while multiple others raised red flags about food safety (rotten milk incident), lack of dietary coordination with physicians, and the absence of diabetic menu options. Specific nutrition problems—such as high-potassium menu items being served to at-risk residents and evening snacks not provided as prescribed—were reported and, in at least one review, linked to clinical concerns. The dietitian's involvement and coordination with medical teams appears inconsistent.
Facilities, amenities, and environment: The campus is described as large (over 200 beds) with a mix of remodeled and older sections. Positive notes include a welcoming lobby, outside patio and garden, walking paths for rehab, and ample parking. Rooming is typically shared (2–4 residents per room); reviewers often criticized the lack of private rooms and the negative effects of roommate pairing (noise, visitors, communication barriers). Activity programming and outdoor time are frequently praised, and several reviewers valued the facility's community feel and outdoor spaces for family visits.
Patterns and overall impression: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. Where staffing levels, clinical oversight, and leadership engagement are strong, residents receive very good care—particularly for short-term rehab goals. Where staffing is thin, communication is poor, or management is absent, serious problems arise: missed medications, neglect, hygiene failures, and distressing experiences for residents and families. This split results in sharply polarized reviews ranging from “amazing” to “horrible.”
For prospective families: reviews suggest it is essential to conduct an in-person tour, ask targeted questions about staffing ratios, wound care protocols, medication administration safeguards, infection control policies, private-room availability, and dietitian/physician coordination. Ask to speak with the therapy team and review recent inspection or complaint records. If a stay is necessary, frequent family check-ins and clear documentation requests may help mitigate known communication and care continuity issues. Overall, Upland Rehabilitation & Care Center demonstrates strong rehabilitation capacity and many compassionate staff members, but persistent operational and clinical variability means outcomes depend heavily on timing, assigned staff, and unit-level management.
