Overall sentiment across the reviews for Bloomfield Nursing & Rehab is highly polarized: a substantial number of families and reviewers report warm, compassionate, and professional care from specific staff members, while an equally large set of reviews details serious problems with neglect, cleanliness, and management responsiveness. Multiple reviewers emphasize that certain CNAs, nurses, and admissions staff deliver excellent, individualized care and create a welcoming environment; other reviewers describe the opposite — neglectful care, verbal abuse, and health/safety concerns. This pattern suggests significant variability in resident experience, possibly tied to shifts, specific employees, or changes in leadership.
Care quality and staff behavior are the most frequently commented-on themes. On the positive side, many reviews single out caregivers who are caring, respectful, and skilled; families describe personalized attention, friendly greetings, and staff that know residents by name. Admissions and marketing staff (notably Daisy Deswood in several comments) and several nurses (e.g., Courtney) receive repeated praise. Conversely, other accounts describe serious lapses: residents left unattended, medical tasks allegedly missed (examples include catheter care concerns and infection reports), staff mocking or making fun of residents over the phone, and nursing or management personnel blaming residents for problems. Theft or missing personal belongings is cited multiple times, and at least one review states a personal item was missing for two months. These conflicting reports point to uneven staff performance and some instances of troubling behavior that families have reported to administration.
Facility condition and housekeeping are another area with mixed feedback. Numerous reviewers praise cleanliness — “sparkly floors,” pleasant or clean smells in some areas, and well-kept common spaces — and several comments say the facility is safe and runs efficiently. At the same time, multiple reviews call out persistent strong odors of urine and fecal matter in hallways and common areas, inadequate room furnishings (described as bare and hospital-like), and overall run-down aspects in some parts of the building. Several reviewers specifically note improvements after a change in ownership — cleaning, repairs, cosmetic upgrades, and renewed training — implying that facility condition may be improving but that past or ongoing problems still affect perception.
Dining and resident engagement receive consistent criticism. Many reviewers describe the food as low quality, “slop,” or otherwise unappealing; others mention dietary shortages or inconsistent meal service. Conversely, some reviewers — notably those commenting after management changes — describe good, nutritious meals. Activities or engagement for residents are repeatedly flagged as insufficient: several reviews state there are no activities, no access to TV or radio, or that residents are left with little stimulation, producing comments characterizing the experience as a “jail without bars.” This is one of the clearest recurring service gaps and contributes substantially to negative impressions.
Management, communication, and responsiveness show stark contrasts across reviews. Several families appreciate clear communication, timely updates about hospital visits or appointments, and courteous interactions with staff and leaders. Other reviewers, however, accuse administration of being unresponsive, not addressing complaints, failing to notify families of critical incidents (including at least one allegation of not informing relatives about a resident’s death), and offering unsatisfactory responses when concerns are raised. Specific names (e.g., Ricky) are associated with unresponsiveness in some reviews, while other comments praise recent executive leadership for proactive improvement. Phone unresponsiveness, weekend delays, and poor follow-through on promises are recurring operational complaints.
A clear pattern emerges of a facility in flux: multiple reviewers praise new ownership and a management team that appears to be repairing, retraining, and improving operations, staffing, and morale. Those positive reports often reference the same themes: improved cleanliness, upgraded technology, better-trained staff, and more nutritious food. However, other reviews describe longstanding systemic problems — theft allegations, discrimination, verbal abuse, medical negligence, and severe staffing or housekeeping lapses — that are not fully resolved. The coexistence of strongly positive and strongly negative reports suggests uneven implementation of improvements and notable variability by unit, shift, or staff assignment.
In summary, Bloomfield Nursing & Rehab receives both heartfelt endorsements and serious criticisms. Pros include many genuinely compassionate caregivers, standout employees in admissions and nursing, a secure and sometimes well-kept environment, and signs of improvement under new leadership. Cons include substantive reports of neglectful care, sanitation and odor problems, poor dining and activity offerings, allegations of theft and abuse, and uneven management responsiveness. These reviews indicate that prospective residents and families should pay close attention to current management practices, ask about recent staffing and training changes, inspect cleanliness and smells in person, inquire about activity programming and dining plans, and confirm protocols for incident reporting, personal belongings security, and medical follow-through before making placement decisions.
