Overall sentiment: Reviews for Laureldale Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center are highly polarized. A substantial number of reviewers praise the staff, therapy outcomes, and aspects of the facility experience, while many others report serious and recurring problems related to cleanliness, staffing levels, clinical care, safety, and communication. The pattern is one of inconsistent performance: some residents and families describe excellent, compassionate, and recovery-focused care, while others describe neglectful, unsafe, or inadequate care — sometimes with alleged severe consequences.
Care quality and safety: Therapy services (OT/PT/speech) receive frequent and strong praise; reviewers repeatedly note knowledgeable therapists, well-equipped gyms, and positive rehabilitation outcomes. Several nurses and therapists are named and lauded for their competence and compassion. However, many reviews raise serious concerns about nursing care and patient safety. There are multiple reports of delayed or incorrect medication administration (including insulin), delayed pain management, missed glucose checks, inadequate initial medical assessments, and delays in imaging that reviewers claim led to missed diagnoses and injuries (including a reported broken hip). Falls, residents left lying in feces, infection concerns (C. difficile), malnutrition, dehydration, and emergency 911 calls are all cited. These safety-related accounts, combined with allegations of cover-ups or reluctance to accept accountability, represent the gravest themes in the negative reviews.
Staffing, attitudes, and variability: A central theme is inconsistency across staff, shifts, and units. Many reviews describe compassionate, professional, attentive aides, nurses, and administrators — some reviewers name staff (e.g., Jonathon Hykes, Chris, Diana, Megan, Kathy) as exemplary. At the same time, others report rude or neglectful attitudes, long response times to call bells, staff being on personal phones, and staff shortages that require families to visit frequently to assist. Short-staffing is frequently cited as contributing to delayed responses, poor assistance with feeding or toileting, and an overall hurried or inattentive care environment. This unevenness suggests staffing levels and training/oversight may vary by shift or floor.
Cleanliness, building condition, and environment: Accounts of the facility’s cleanliness are mixed. Some reviewers describe clean, sunny, well-maintained rooms and attractive grounds, noting ample storage, adjustable heat, and rooms described as bright and spacious. Others report filthy conditions — soiled carpets and hallways, strong odors, broken or improvised equipment (ice machines), unbagged/unlabeled belongings, and even beer cans in the parking lot. Several reviewers noted improvement after management change, while others believe common areas and certain floors remain neglected. The presence (or absence) of nursing-home smell is variable by unit in the reports.
Dining and nutrition: Dining impressions are inconsistent. Several reviewers praise flavorful, tender entrees, properly cooked vegetables, snacks, and reasonable kitchen hours, while many others complain of cold food, small portions, meals not matching the posted menu, lack of assistance at mealtime (food delivered but residents not helped to eat), and insufficient beverage options (e.g., decaf coffee). Reports of weight loss and inadequate feeding assistance appear tied to staffing and monitoring issues.
Activities and resident life: Many reviews highlight a growing or robust activities program — pet therapy, manicures, bingo, ice cream socials, entertainment shows, and other social offerings — and several families say residents enjoyed these. Conversely, some reviewers feel programming is limited or repetitive (mostly bingo), residents were isolated, or lacked companionship and TV access. Accessibility concerns appear in certain rooms: small bathrooms, crowded wheelchairs, and insufficient space for mobility aids were flagged as limiting future suitability for some residents.
Administration, communication, and trust: Reviewers’ views of administration vary widely. Some praise attentive directors and organized admissions, secure check-in systems, and good communication; others express frustration over poor communication, lack of notification during hospitalizations, allegations of administrative inaction regarding serious incidents, and billing/refund disputes. Several reviewers express a perception that the facility is money-focused or unwilling to fully investigate or resolve problems. Reports of restricted visitation and couple separation were also raised.
Patterns and risk signals: The most concerning and consistent negative patterns are (1) delayed clinical care and medication errors; (2) long response times to call bells; (3) inconsistent housekeeping and sanitation, with some accounts describing potentially hazardous environments; and (4) inconsistent staffing and training leading to highly variable resident experiences. Positive patterns include consistently strong therapy services and multiple individual staff members and units that deliver compassionate, high-quality care.
Conclusion and guidance: Families considering Laureldale should be aware of the sharp variability in experiences. Key actions before placement: tour multiple units and floors at different times of day, meet nursing and therapy staff, ask about staffing ratios and weekend coverage, inquire specifically about protocols for medication administration, fall prevention, and infection control, and verify how personal belongings and laundry are handled/labelled. If a loved one is admitted, frequent early monitoring and clear documentation of care needs, and maintaining active communication with administration and therapy teams can help. The facility clearly has strong clinical and therapy resources and several highly regarded staff, but reviewers also document recurring, serious lapses in safety, hygiene, and consistent nursing care that warrant careful consideration and ongoing vigilance.
