Eddy Visiting Nurse Association in Catskill, NY

Cons

• The nurse assigned to the patient only visited once, weeks after discharge.
• They left monitoring equipment and refused to pick it up after being called three times.
• Their communication is non-existent.
• They have more contact with the patient's doctors than with the patient.
• The reviewer would never use them again or recommend them.
• The agency is very disorganized and inconsistent.
• They claim to offer many services, but lack staff to meet clients' needs.
• Phone calls are not returned in a timely manner, if ever.
• When problems arise, the nurses rarely speak up, hoping someone else will handle them.
• There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Review

This Eddy Visiting Nurse Association location in Catskill, NY is best suited for families that want in-home nursing support tied to a recent hospital discharge or ongoing chronic-condition management, and that can act as the primary care manager, coordinating visits, equipment, and doctor communication. The agency promises a broad menu of services delivered at home, but the real value hinges on reliable staffing and responsive coordination. For households that require consistently prompt follow-up, clear accountability, and proactive problem solving, this provider will demand careful vetting; those expectations are not guaranteed here.

The current feedback highlights a troubling pattern. In at least one case, a patient was discharged home with a nurse promised to visit, only to see the nurse weeks later, if at all, and then equipment was left behind with no timely pickup after multiple calls. In another, families describe disorganization and inconsistent service, with staff shortages that prevent meeting stated needs and a culture where communication is not prioritized. Calls are not returned promptly, if at all, and when problems arise, nurses appear reluctant to escalate or take ownership, creating a sense of “too many chiefs, not enough Indians.” Taken together, these issues signal a fragile continuity of care that undermines the very purpose of home health in transition and recovery.

On the upside, the agency’s stated scope and the existence of in-home nursing visits offer a potential path to avoiding frequent hospital readmissions and maintaining oversight for recovery. The presence of monitoring equipment and the claim of a broad services portfolio suggest that, when functioning well, the team can coordinate with treating physicians and support a patient at home. However, the optimistic view only holds if scheduling is dependable, communication is timely, and staff consistently follow through. In the current pattern, the tangible benefits, timely visits, proactive issue resolution, and clean logistics, are overshadowed by recurring gaps in execution.

Families evaluating this option should push for concrete, writing-backed assurances before committing. Key questions to demand include: a dedicated care coordinator or point person, guaranteed visit windows and backup coverage, explicit response-time standards for calls or messages, a formal escalation protocol for problems, and a documented policy for handling and returning monitoring equipment. In addition, request direct references from recent families and clear metrics on visit adherence, hospital readmission rates, and physician communication with the agency. Clarity on weekend and holiday availability further informs whether the service can truly support an at-home recovery phase.

If proceeding despite the concerns, implement safeguards that reduce risk. Require a formal, signed care plan with named staff and an agreed-upon schedule, plus a trial period with measurable milestones and weekly progress updates. Secure a backup nurse arrangement to cover inevitable staffing gaps, and insist on a written equipment pickup/return protocol with accountability for delays. Establish a simple, documented channel for families to escalate issues without fear of pushback, and ensure the agency provides clear, timely feedback from the patient’s medical team. Without these guardrails, the likelihood of ongoing frustration remains high.

Ultimately, this provider may be a reasonable choice for households that already have a strong internal advocate, can tolerate variability, and are prepared to enforce clear service standards. The data, rated 3.3 overall with two five-star and two negative reviews, reads as conditional rather than confident: when things go right, the model can work; when they don’t, the consequences are meaningful for recovery and daily safety. For families where reliable scheduling, proactive communication, and immediate problem resolution are non-negotiables, it is wise to explore alternatives with stronger track records in continuity of care, quicker responsiveness, and tighter accountability. Obtain multiple references, compare home-health options, and visit potential providers to judge whether staff culture aligns with the level of dependable care required.