The reviews for Riverstreet Manor are highly polarized, with many reviewers offering strong praise for specific aspects of the facility while a significant subset recounts serious safety and care concerns. Overall sentiment ranges from 'marvelous' and 'home away from home' to descriptions of 'the worst nursing home ever.' This split suggests notable inconsistency in performance that appears to depend on shift, individual staff members, and possibly clinical circumstances.
Care quality and medical management present the most striking contrast. A large group of reviews praises the rehabilitation and therapy teams: PT/OT repeatedly receives favorable comments, with several reviewers describing long, effective therapy sessions and excellent outcomes for short-term rehab patients. Multiple families reported positive rehab experiences and significant functional improvement. Conversely, there are numerous alarming accounts of medical neglect and poor wound care. Complaints include untreated pressure sores, infections that progressed to sepsis, delayed or refused calls to physicians, hospice delays, and at least one extreme allegation involving maggots in a resident's foot and a resulting toe amputation. Reviewers described delays in basic medical attention, missed medications, and situations where staff allegedly ignored or did not escalate clinical changes. These statements point to potentially serious lapses in clinical oversight for some residents.
Staffing, responsiveness, and staff behavior are consistent themes. Many reviewers singled out individual employees and shifts as exceptional — naming nurses, aides, therapists, and admissions staff who provided compassionate, professional, and attentive care. Several admissions and administrative staff members received repeated praise for warmth and helpfulness. However, there is a recurring pattern of unresponsiveness: unanswered call bells, slow reaction to requests for water/medication, and reports of residents being left in soiled diapers for extended periods. Multiple families noted fewer staff on nights and weekends, poorer performance from contract or weekend nurses, and wide variability between shifts. Reports of rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional behavior from some aides and nurses further compound concerns about reliability and resident dignity.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment also show mixed feedback. Many reviewers described the physical plant as clean, well-kept, and attractive, frequently praising the courtyard, dining area, and overall atmosphere. Conversely, some reviews allege severe hygiene problems — fecal matter on mattresses, beds not cleaned promptly, and inadequate room cleanliness. These conflicting reports again suggest uneven housekeeping and nursing assistant practices, possibly linked to staffing levels or inconsistent supervision.
Dining and food service receive mostly positive notes about taste and presentation, with several reviewers praising nutritious, well-prepared meals. Yet there are also complaints about dietary mismanagement: unfulfilled requests (e.g., dentures, preferred foods), improper meal service, and allergy/safety issues such as fish being served to someone with an allergy. While food quality appears strong for many residents, communication gaps and occasional lapses in meal accommodations are notable.
Communication, management responsiveness, and administrative practices are another area of division. Some families report excellent interactions with management, helpful billing and maintenance, and a professional admissions experience. Contrastingly, multiple reviewers reported poor communication around clinical events, lack of follow-up on grievances, and troubling administrative incidents like allegedly releasing funds to a funeral director without consent and missing personal belongings. There are also reports of attempts to change doctors or make clinical decisions without family consent and general distrust of facility leadership by some reviewers.
Safety, equity, and policy concerns appear in a number of reviews. Several reviewers raised alarm about infection control and COVID-19 policy compliance. There are also accusations of bias and discriminatory treatment toward patients of color from some families — a serious concern that requires investigation. Combined with the extremes of alleged neglect and theft, these reports indicate potential systemic issues in policies, supervision, and cultural competency.
In summary, Riverstreet Manor elicits strong positive experiences centered on compassionate individual staff members, robust therapy/rehab services, pleasant facilities, and good dining for many residents. At the same time, there are repeated and severe negative reports involving neglect, medical mismanagement, inconsistent staffing and responsiveness, hygiene lapses, communication failures, and alleged administrative malpractices. The most actionable patterns from these reviews are: (1) high variability in care quality depending on staff/shift, (2) recurring delays in responding to call bells and clinical changes, and (3) specific but serious allegations around wound care, infection outcomes, and handling of belongings/administrative decisions. Prospective families should seek detailed, current information about staffing ratios, clinical oversight (nursing leadership and wound care protocols), weekend/contract nurse coverage, and the facility’s grievance and investigation processes. Families currently involved with Riverstreet Manor should document incidents, escalate through formal grievance channels, and consider external oversight (physician involvement, hospice evaluation, or ombudsman contact) if clinical deterioration or neglect is observed.
