Overall sentiment about Concordia Transitional Care & Rehab–Rose Manor is highly mixed and polarized: several reviews describe exceptional, dignified, and effective rehabilitative and nursing care, while a substantial number of reviews describe serious problems with cleanliness, staffing, management responsiveness, and dining. The contrast suggests the facility can and does provide high-quality rehab and nursing care for some residents, but there are recurring, significant concerns that affect other residents’ daily experience and safety.
Care quality and outcomes: Multiple reviewers report strong nursing care and successful rehabilitation outcomes — including improved mobility, attentive staff, and continuing follow-up after discharge. Some families explicitly said their loved ones were well taken care of, that staff were supportive, and that they would recommend the facility. Conversely, other reviewers describe neglect: residents left in soiled or wet beds for hours, residents not bathed and requiring family intervention, and an overall lack of basic personal care. The pattern indicates variable care quality, with some units or shifts delivering excellent care while others fall short.
Staff behavior and attitudes: Reviews are sharply split on staff demeanor. Positive comments highlight pleasant, accommodating, and attentive staff and a helpful social worker. Negative reports are more numerous and more severe in tone: staff described as rude, even cursing at residents; staff frequently on cell phones or smoking on site; and reports of theft. Several reviews also note a high proportion of temporary staff, which likely contributes to inconsistency in behavior and care standards. These accounts point to entrenched culture and supervision issues in parts of the facility.
Facility condition and cleanliness: A major theme among negative reviews is poor physical conditions: dirty or nasty building areas, pervasive bad smells, roaches/bugs, and rooms in bad repair. Specific examples include rooms without heat or working bathrooms, beds left wet and dirty for hours, and food trays or refuse left in rooms for days. Such conditions raise infection-control and safety concerns and were influential in prompting formal complaints to state authorities, according to reviewers.
Food and dining: Dining feedback skews negative for many reviewers. Several describe food as cold, slop-like, or simply terrible. One reviewer noted that food remained poor even after a change in ownership. Others mention food-related problems intersecting with staffing and cleanliness (e.g., trays left for days). However, a few reviewers were satisfied with dining or at least with other aspects of care, suggesting the dining experience may vary by dining staff, meal times, or individual expectations.
Management, communication, and complaints: Multiple reviewers report that management (including the director) is unavailable or unresponsive to complaints. Several families say complaints to staff and administration were ignored, prompting formal complaints filed with the state. One review criticized the resident council as ineffective. Positive notes about management are limited to accounts where concerns were addressed expediently — indicating that responsiveness varies and may depend on who the family interacts with.
Staffing levels and use of temporary staff: Understaffing is a frequently mentioned issue, with reviewers noting not enough staff on duty and many temporary personnel. Understaffing is reported alongside many of the negative outcomes (delayed hygiene care, rooms left dirty, trays not cleared), reinforcing the likelihood that staffing levels and staff continuity are key drivers of variability in resident experiences.
Resident well-being, family involvement, and long-term stays: Several families emphasize daily involvement and report respectful, long-term residency experiences (including a three-year stay described positively). Others report residents are sad or crying regularly, indicating emotional distress for some. Shared-room issues (e.g., being paired with a non-mobile roommate) were also cited and contributed to dissatisfaction. The presence of both strongly positive and strongly negative family experiences suggests that outcomes may depend heavily on unit, timing, staffing, or the specific staff assigned to a resident.
Notable patterns and red flags: Recurrent red-flag themes are sanitation (bugs, bad smells), safety/neglect (beds left wet, residents unbathed, broken bathrooms), theft, and management unresponsiveness. Positive patterns cluster around rehab success stories, effective nursing care in certain cases, and continuing follow-up after discharge. The variability in reports — from “exceptional” to “terrible overall” — is the most prominent pattern and suggests inconsistent standards across the facility.
Recommendation summary: Families considering this facility should weigh the documented strong rehabilitative capabilities and positive nursing experiences against repeated reports of poor cleanliness, inconsistent staffing, management unresponsiveness, and safety concerns. Prospective families should (1) ask specific questions about staffing ratios and the use of agency/temporary staff on the intended unit, (2) tour the specific unit and inspect room conditions and dining areas in person, (3) request recent inspection reports or complaint histories, and (4) identify on-site staff contacts (social worker or unit manager) who have demonstrably addressed concerns for other residents. These steps can help determine whether the unit a prospective resident would join aligns with the positive experiences reported rather than the negative ones.
