Overall sentiment in the reviews for Hudson Pointe at Riverdale Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers describe excellent, compassionate, and effective care — especially in rehabilitation, therapy, dietary services, and specific frontline staff interactions — while many other reviewers report serious clinical neglect, safety problems, and poor facility maintenance. The volume and extremity of both praise and condemnation indicate a facility with meaningful strengths for some residents and concerning failures for others, often correlated to unit, shift, or individual staff members.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most divisive themes. Positive reviews frequently highlight attentive nurses, aides, and therapists who helped residents regain mobility and comfort, clear examples of good nursing practice, successful rehabilitative outcomes, and timely responses to concerns. Conversely, numerous reviews document severe clinical issues: pressure ulcers and worsening wounds (including reports of infections reaching bone), substantial weight loss and dehydration, untreated fevers and urinary tract infections, delayed transfers to emergency care, and even allegations of sepsis and deaths. These adverse clinical reports are accompanied by claims of neglected hygiene, residents left in feces for hours, missing personal items, and inadequate proactive plans of care. The presence of both robust positive care narratives and multiple serious negative clinical reports suggests inconsistent application of clinical standards across the facility.
Staffing, professionalism, and culture appear highly variable. Many families praise specific staff by name and describe warm, courteous, and engaged teams, an efficient front desk, and social work that facilitated discharge and care transitions. Yet a large body of complaints focus on rude, unprofessional, or inattentive personnel, named problematic individuals, supervisory hostility, and reports of staff sleeping on overnight shifts. Several reviewers explicitly cite understaffing, personnel not communicating among themselves, and staff turnover as contributors to poor care. The result is a patchwork experience: some shifts or floors deliver compassionate, coordinated care while others exhibit neglectful, even dangerous behavior.
Facility condition and cleanliness are other areas of contradiction. Many reviewers praise the facility as clean, well-kept, quiet, and undergoing active renovations that improve first-floor areas. At the same time, numerous complaints mention foul odors of feces and urine, mildew in showers and storage rooms, cracked tiles, ripped curtains, blood on sheets, roach or mouse sightings, and damaged furniture. Reports of construction and refurbishment are present and appear to be improving some areas, but maintenance and sanitation issues remain recurrent in several accounts.
Dining, activities, and patient engagement are recurring strengths in positive reviews. The dietary department receives substantial praise for good food, complimentary family meals, and caring dietary staff; many residents and families appreciated the variety of scheduled activities, live music, games, movie screenings, and other social programs. Some reviewers, however, disliked the food and reported delayed or low-quality meals during certain shifts. The facility’s flexible visitation policies and occasional examples of attentive social programming are clear positives for families seeking engagement and access.
Management, communication, and administrative practices receive mixed ratings. Some reviewers commend an efficient admissions process, helpful Medicare and intake staff, and responsive administrators who resolve problems. Other families report poor communication, full voicemail boxes, language barriers, social workers perceived as unhelpful or blaming families, difficulties in arranging transfers or discharges, and suspicions that billing/insurance motives influenced care decisions. A few reviewers explicitly mention intentions to report concerns to public health authorities and Medicare, indicating significant distrust among some family members.
Patterns and recommendations derived from the reviews: the facility demonstrates strong capability in nursing, therapy, and hospitality when teams are fully staffed and professionally engaged — several accounts describe recovery and comfort outcomes to that effect. However, repeated reports of clinical neglect, safety hazards, maintenance lapses, and poor communication underline a level of systemic inconsistency. These concerns are frequently tied to specific shifts, floors, or personnel, suggesting variability in training, supervision, or staffing ratios.
For families evaluating Hudson Pointe, the reviews suggest benefit from due diligence: visit multiple times and at varied hours (including nights), inspect the room and common areas for cleanliness and maintenance, ask directly about wound care and weight monitoring procedures, get named points of contact for nursing and therapy, document care plans and concerns in writing, and verify medication and transfer protocols. If there are signs of active neglect (worsening pressure injuries, untreated infections, severe weight loss, or safety hazards), families should escalate quickly to facility administration and consider contacting regulatory authorities. In short, Hudson Pointe shows clear strengths around rehabilitation, compassionate staff members, dining, and activities for many residents, but the substantial and well-documented negative reports about neglect, safety, and cleanliness make it essential to monitor care closely and proactively advocate for any vulnerable resident placed there.
