St Josephs nursing and Rehab

Pros

• The facility is clean and orderly, with very polite staff.
• The staff was great.

Cons

• The facility is described as the filthiest skilled nursing facility the reviewer has ever seen.
• The environment is loud and chaotic, with people wandering unsupervised and few clean surfaces.
• The building is roach- and rat-infested, dirty, and germ-infested.
• Staff are rude, unwelcoming, and abusive toward residents and their families.
• A family member's father was told he was dead in a curt, insensitive way, with poor communication about the death.
• The facility rushed the body to a funeral home and did not allow the family to say goodbye in a timely manner.
• Belongings and clothes frequently go missing.
• Rooms are overcrowded (four deep) with limited bathroom access, and visitation policies are outdated or restrictive.
• The social worker and director of nursing are described as nasty, unprofessional, and unresponsive.
• Inadequate care led to severe outcomes, including wound-care delays and a near-amputation after a misidentified blister and poor transfer support (no wheelchair provided when needed).

Review

The collection of stories about this facility reads like a sustained warning rather than a review. Across multiple accounts, families and patients describe a setting that feels unsafe, unclean, and chaotic from the moment you walk in. The overarching impression is that the place is loud, poorly supervised, and difficult to trust with the care of vulnerable loved ones. Several reviewers emphasize that the environment itself - dusty, dark, and visibly dirty - would make anyone uncomfortable, with hallways that feel more like a public crisis zone than a place for healing.

A common thread is the level of filth and pest problems. Reviews recount roaches and even rats, widespread dirt on surfaces, and a sense that basic cleaning is irregular or nonexistent. In addition to general cleanliness concerns, critics allege that surfaces, bathrooms, and patient rooms often appear unclean and poorly maintained. The complaint about cleanliness is tied to broader safety concerns: overcrowded rooms (three to four patients per room) create cramped conditions that leave little space to maneuver, access bathrooms, or maintain privacy. The result is a facility that many describe as unhygienic and unsafe, with tenants living in conditions that feel more like a crowded dormitory than a rehabilitative environment.

Care quality and responsiveness are frequent flashpoints. Several accounts claim delays in basic needs being met - call lights ignored for long periods, rooms and wash areas not prepared for patient use, and therapy or routine care treated as lower priority. There are specific complaints about patient dignity and daily life: patients not being bathed for days, rooms left in disarray, and even furniture or devices being unplugged or displaced without reason. In one strongly worded episode, a patient's family describes a pervasive neglect that includes being told to leave phones and televisions out of reach, or being left without essential equipment. The cadence of care, when it exists, is inconsistent at best and dangerously lax at worst.

The treatment of family members during medical crises and end-of-life moments appears especially troubling in several stories. One account describes a death handled with blunt insensitivity - "oh yeah your dad is DEAD" - and a failure to communicate promptly or respectfully with the family. The same narrative cites delays or complications in arranging proper aftercare, such as transport to a funeral home, with the body possibly remaining in a hallway rather than being prepared for viewing. Such episodes portray a culture in which crucial emotional and logistical details are mishandled, leaving families feeling abandoned and disrespected at their most vulnerable moments.

There are persistent accusations of a toxic staff culture. Reviewers accuse social workers, directors of nursing, and other administrators of rude, dismissive, or punitive behavior. Complaints range from curt and unhelpful responses to outright refusal to assist with transfers, paperwork, or basic coordination with other facilities. Several reviewers allege that requests from family members - whether about visitation policies, transfer logistics, or basic patient needs - are met with hostility or indifference. One reviewer highlights a "prison-like" environment filled with condescension from the top down, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

A pattern of administrative friction and procedural opacity also emerges. Families report difficult or slow transfers to other facilities, mixed messages about transfer status, and paperwork that never gets properly resent or received. Some accounts recount a front-desk experience that feels unwelcoming or incompetently managed, and there are repeated mentions of communication gaps - messages left with the expectation they'll be returned, only to be met with delays or silence. In several cases, this dysfunction extends to the inability to provide basic comforts for the patient, such as access to a personal television or reliable in-room communication, amplifying the sense that the facility is not capable of delivering even standard levels of care.

Amid the sea of negative experiences, a few reviewers offer a contrasting note. One claims the facility can be clean and orderly with polite staff, and another simply states that the staff was great. These positives are far from the majority of the stories, but their presence suggests that experiences can vary and that some patients may encounter better situations than others. Nevertheless, the prevailing sentiment remains that, for many families, the risks, neglect, and distress far outweigh any potential benefits.

In the end, the tone of these narratives is one of deep concern and caution. Families advising others to stay away describe a place that feels unsafe for vulnerable loved ones, where basic dignity and cleanliness often take a back seat to overcrowding, poor supervision, and inconsistent care. For anyone considering this facility, the message conveyed through these accounts is clear: the risk to personal safety, comfort, and respectful treatment appears high, and the longing for a kinder, more competent environment is strong. If you must place a loved one somewhere, many reviewers suggest exploring alternatives with a clearer track record of attentive, compassionate care.

Restaurants

• Fowling Warehouse (0.9 miles)
• Yemen Cafe (1.1 miles)
• Z's Villa (2.8 miles)
• Subway (3.6 miles)
• McDonald's (3.7 miles)
• McDonald's (3.8 miles)
• Woodbridge Pub (3.8 miles)

Hospitals

• Park Geriatric Village (2.4 miles)
• Henry Ford Hospital (3.1 miles)
• Henry Ford Health System (3.1 miles)
• Hfhs - Main - F4 (3.1 miles)
• Detroit Receiving Hospital (3.6 miles)
• Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (3.6 miles)
• Hudson-Webber Cancer Research (3.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (2.9 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.4 miles)
• Rite Aid (3.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.7 miles)
• Indian Village Market (4.8 miles)

Parks

• Palmer Park (3.4 miles)
• Scout Park (4.3 miles)
• Valade Park (5.2 miles)
• William G. Milliken State Park and Harbor (5.2 miles)
• Center Line Memorial Park (5.3 miles)
• Belle Isle Park (5.7 miles)
• Harding Park (6 miles)

Physicians

• Childrens Hospital Of Michigan Specialty Center - Detroit (3.6 miles)
• University Health Center (3.7 miles)
• Windsor Regional Hospital (6.8 miles)
• Royal Oak Pediatrics PC (7.7 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Charles Church (4.4 miles)
• St John's Presbyterian Church (4.7 miles)

Cafes

• The Bean Bar (5.3 miles)
• Ferndale Project (5.5 miles)
• Starbucks (7.1 miles)
• Starbucks (7.3 miles)
• Qahwah House (7.7 miles)

Theaters

• Emagine Royal Oak (7.4 miles)