Ashby Personal Care Home in Sharon, PA

Pros

• The staff were very professional, kind, attentive and knowledgeable.
• They made a difficult time easier for the family.
• The CNAs, LPNs, and RNs work together to provide the best care possible.
• The therapy department is professional and pleasant to talk with, keeping residents engaged and moving.
• The administrator is visible and compassionate to residents' needs, and the business manager is accessible and knowledgeable about insurances.
• The activity director notes residents are fun and amazing, and the staff are super helpful.

Cons

• The LPN was described as neglectful toward patient care and as engaging in behavior perceived as racially discriminatory toward a family member.
• Medical concerns were repeatedly minimized, leaving the family waiting for extended periods without updates or necessary care.
• Questions about treatment were met with dismissive or unclear responses, while other patients appeared to receive more attentive and respectful service.
• The reviewer suggested the facility should shut down, citing ongoing disarray and frequent leadership changes.
• A walk-through reportedly uncovered a strong urine and feces odor, no one at the nurse station, and multiple call lights going unanswered.
• There were reports of staff outside smoking and of CNAs and RNs being disrespectful or verbally abusive toward residents and each other.
• A CNA was seen on a cell phone in a resident's room, and another CNA was yelling at a resident over a TV remote.
• A former resident’s death was attributed to neglect, including an untreated bed sore that progressed to a serious condition.

Review

Ashby Personal Care Home in Sharon, Pennsylvania is best suited for families pursuing a rehab‑driven stay where a resident can make meaningful progress with the help of a capable therapy team and skilled bedside staff, provided there is tolerance for leadership shifts and uneven daily operations. This is not a one‑size‑fits‑all option: anyone demanding a consistently spotless environment, perfectly predictable staffing, and transparent, unwavering communication should seriously weigh alternatives. When therapy and clinical staff are aligned, residents can benefit from attentive care and structured rehab, but the guardrails around day‑to‑day operations are not consistently reliable.

On the plus side, several reviews highlight competent LPN and RN care, and a therapy department that is described as professional and engaging. Families repeatedly note that the therapy team keeps residents moving and engaged, and that administrators, when present, are accessible and informed about insurance and needs. The activity director’s enthusiasm also comes through in some accounts, suggesting pockets of genuine resident‑centered energy within the building. These strengths demonstrate that Ashby has real capacity in clinical skill and rehab momentum when leadership and staffing cooperate.

Yet the strong points sit alongside deeply troubling safety and quality concerns. A number of reviews recount neglect or minimized medical issues, with extended waits for updates or care and questions treated as obstacles rather than essential information. There are vivid reports of smell and sanitation problems, call lights going unanswered, and aides or residents being spoken to disrespectfully. In several accounts, staff behavior toward residents and toward one another includes yelling, distraction, and a lack of professional collegiality, conditions that undermine trust in daily care. Pulling at these threads further, families describe persistent turnover, fragmented communication, and repeated administrative restructuring that disrupts continuity of care.

Those competing realities mean the pros can partially offset the cons only in specific, limited circumstances. When rehab goals are the priority and the resident benefits from consistent, capable therapy and attentive clinical staff, some gains are possible. However, the broader pattern of turnover, inconsistent supplies and accountability, and reported safety lapses dramatically erode reliability for long‑term care. For a family weighing long residency, the risk of abrupt leadership changes and uneven rescue responses often outweigh the potential rehab upside. In short, the care you see on one shift or in one department may be starkly different from another, making predictability scarce.

Explicitly, families who require steady safety, clean surroundings, and respectful, responsive interactions should consider alternatives. This is not a place to assume stable day‑to‑day experience without direct verification. Prospective residents should scrutinize current staffing levels, turnover rates, and incident histories; request to speak with current residents’ families; and tour at multiple times to observe call lights, housekeeping, and nurse responsiveness. State inspection records and on‑site observations should guide the decision, not a single favorable anecdote amid a string of cautionary tales.

The decision framework here should center on risk tolerance and care priorities. If rehab progress and a visible, involved therapy team are non‑negotiables, Ashby may be worth a careful, time‑boxed trial with explicit expectations and a robust oversight plan. If, however, reliability, cleanliness, and consistently respectful treatment are paramount, exploring alternatives with steadier leadership and higher consistency is strongly advised. The choice should rest on verifiable, current performance rather than past impressions or isolated positive notes. In the end, a well‑informed family will prioritize a home where daily care feels reliable, respectful, and safe, with leadership that sustains steady improvement rather than repeated upheaval.