Overall sentiment in the reviews for Windham House of Hattiesburg is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers describe the staff, therapy services, and facility atmosphere in very positive terms, while another set of reviews raise serious safety, hygiene, and management concerns. Many families praise front-line caregivers, therapy staff, and certain named employees repeatedly. Physical and occupational therapy receives consistent commendation (several reviewers single out PTs such as JoJo), and multiple reviews highlight friendly, compassionate CNAs and nurses who create a warm, home-like environment. Common-area cleanliness, a pleasant smell, manicured grounds, attractive patios and dining spaces, and an overall tidy appearance are frequently noted. The facility’s admissions and front-desk staff are often described as professional, informative, and helpful, and families report an easy-to-use visitor check-in process and accommodations for special family events. For many residents and families Windham House is viewed as a worthwhile, comfortable option with engaging activities, attentive aides, and a welcoming atmosphere.
However, the positive experiences are counterbalanced by numerous and sometimes severe negative reports about resident safety, room conditions, daily care, and management practices. A recurring and significant theme is that resident rooms — in contrast to the cleaner common areas — can be in poor condition: worn cabinetry, peeling paint, sagging beds, and reports of rooms in “serious need of repair.” There are allegations of frequent room changes and at least one flooded room. Several reviewers describe unreliable or slow nurse response times and malfunctioning call light systems, raising real concerns about timely assistance. Understaffing is mentioned repeatedly and is linked to delayed responses, dining-in-room trends, and reduced supervision.
Dining receives mixed-to-poor evaluations across reviews. Some reviewers say meals can be decent, but many others describe food as disappointing, unrecognizable, leftover-based, or even occasionally not provided. Families note instances of missed meal service. Hygiene and direct care problems are among the most alarming reports: multiple reviewers allege inadequate incontinence care (insufficient diapering, residents left soaked in urine/feces, mold on cleaning supplies), and there are specific, serious accusations including medication theft by a nurse and rough handling or mistreatment by a named CNA (Angela). Safety incidents are also reported, such as a resident left unattended on a portable toilet who fell, suffered head injury, and required emergency transfer; these accounts allege excuses and lack of accountability from nursing staff.
Management and clinical oversight receive mixed feedback. Some reviewers describe administration as responsive and willing to investigate and resolve complaints, and note that incidents were addressed. Others report poor management, alleged protection of staff by corporate structures, understaffing driven by cost-cutting, and restrictive visitation or freedom-to-leave policies. Clinically, several reviewers express concern about lack of physician rounding and describe an inept nurse practitioner, while other reviews praise specific nurses (e.g., Nurse Rosa) and describe excellent clinical care. This inconsistency suggests variable experiences depending on shift, unit, or individual caregivers.
A clear pattern emerges of contrasts between public/communal presentation and private/resident-level realities. Many reviewers repeatedly emphasize that the building, landscaping, and common areas are attractive and well-maintained, and that many staff members go above and beyond. At the same time, a not-insignificant portion of families report troubling deficiencies inside resident rooms, in frontline clinical care, and in operational reliability (call lights, meal service, maintenance). Several reviewers note renovations in progress, implying the facility is aware of wear-and-tear, but others view renovation and staffing changes as insufficient to address core care and safety problems.
For a prospective family or referral source, these reviews suggest performing targeted, in-person due diligence: tour resident rooms (not only common areas), ask about staffing ratios and call-light response times, request details about physician and advanced-practice clinician coverage, sample the dining program, inquire about incontinence care protocols and supply availability, and ask how the facility reports and follows up on incidents (falls, medication errors, allegations of abuse or theft). Ask whether a formal plan exists to remediate room repairs and how renovations affect resident life. Also seek references from current families and check whether praised staff members referenced in reviews remain employed. In sum, Windham House appears capable of providing warm, effective therapy and compassionate caregiving in many cases, but there are repeated, specific reports of safety, hygiene, and management failings that warrant careful, specific verification before placement.
