Colonial Manor Nursing Home

Pros

• Some of the staff are very nice.
• The reviewer's daughter was happy with the staff, the building conditions, and the facility's design that helped her become stable and stay stable through coping skills learned in group therapy.
• The daughter benefited from group therapy, learning coping skills that supported her stabilization.

Cons

• The facility is a bad place where patients are abused, belittled, and ridiculed.
• The staff are described as having better things to do than help patients.
• A patient was reportedly kidnapped from another state and held without the patient's knowledge.
• They allegedly threaten to take patients to court to hold them without any basis.
• The place is called a dumping ground when beds aren't available at better facilities.
• Staff are accused of mistreatment, misinforming about disorders, and withholding medications.
• One patient was allegedly beaten during a seizure and kept longer to conceal injuries.
• Medications were stolen or withheld, leading to dangerous withdrawal and extended illness.
• Documentation is described as inaccurate, with records that are not kept properly.
• Patients experience poor care, extremely limited meals, and inadequate access to essentials like water and blankets.
• Observation rounds are reported as infrequent or neglectful, with seclusion rooms used inappropriately.
• Privacy rights and HIPAA rights are claimed to have been violated, including unsanctioned intern visits.
• Some staff are described as unprofessional, with vaping inside the facility.
• There are allegations that the facility pays people to write positive reviews to mislead the public.
• Overall, the place is portrayed as traumatizing and something to be avoided for loved ones.

Review

Across a series of troubling accounts, a single facility emerges as a place where fear and frustration appear to outpace care. Friends and family members describe harrowing experiences that begin even before treatment has a chance to begin. One story speaks of a loved one being taken from out of state without consent for outpatient therapy, a voluntary admission that quickly spiraled into an eight-day hold. In that account, the staff's demeanor suggested they had "better things to do" than help patients, and despite promises, no one ever reached out to the concerned family member. The sense that the place is a last-ditch stop - an impromptu "dumping ground" when beds are scarce - runs through multiple recollections, underscoring a troubling pattern: patients are being admitted under distressing circumstances, with little reassurance or transparency about what comes next.

Communication and accountability appear to be among the most persistent problems. Families recount promises of contact that never materialized, and a sense that patients are left to navigate their care with insufficient information. In at least one account, staff admitted that the admission should not have occurred in the first place, yet no corrective steps followed. The fear of legal escalation looms large in several narratives, with threats of court actions used to pressure patients and families rather than to advocate for appropriate treatment. The feeling conveyed is that the facility does not treat patients as autonomous individuals with rights, but as problems to be managed, sometimes at the expense of safety, dignity, and proper clinical judgment.

The human element of care - or the lack thereof - appears to be at the heart of many complaints. Several reviewers describe staff who are rude, dismissive, and disengaged, with some employees appearing more interested in their own activities than in the well-being of those in their care. Instances of being yelled at, belittled, or ignored are echoed across accounts, alongside reports of patients being denied basic needs like water or snacks. One reviewer vividly recalls being unmedicated for two days and receiving only partial doses of prescribed medications; another recounts witnessing aggressive behavior, including a staff member punching a patient to regain control and then isolating the individual for an extended period. The recurring impression is that a culture of neglect, rather than therapeutic restraint, permeates the ward.

Medication management and the treatment environment are recurring points of contention. Several accounts claim that patients were denied access to essential medications or had their regimens altered without clear justification or proper oversight. The consequences described range from withdrawal symptoms to heightened anxiety and fear, all while patients report feeling pressured to accept changes they did not initiate. The setting itself is depicted as challenging to endure: cramped spaces, frequent loud television volumes, and a lack of access to basic comforts and privacy. Observations and routines - such as rounds that are sporadic or insincere - contribute to a sense that patient welfare is secondary to preserving order or avoiding confrontation rather than to clinical accuracy and compassion.

The physical and procedural conditions paint a stark picture of strain and neglect. Reviewers refer to routine inadequacies - from food that is described as high in carbohydrates and junk food to bathrooms with spiders and harsh, impersonal features like cement-walled seclusion rooms. Access to observation and monitoring appears inconsistent, with some patients reporting long periods without supervision or meaningful checks on their safety. The environment, described as impersonal and punitive at times, compounds the sense of vulnerability and fear. There are also mentions of water access issues and limited supplies, contributing to overall discomfort and a perception that basic human needs are not being prioritized.

Rights, privacy, and the integrity of care are highlighted as serious concerns. Several reviewers allege violations of patient rights, including unauthorized intern visits and alleged breaches of HIPAA or informed consent practices. Claims of patients being asked to sign papers without true consent, and of staff attempting to present unverified documents through social workers, are described as distressing and potentially illegal. There is also mention of the perception that some reviews may be manufactured to bolster the facility's image, with skeptical notes about the authenticity of online praise. Even with these concerns, some reviewers acknowledge that a few staff members are kind or competent, but they are outnumbered by those who appear overwhelmed, understaffed, or inadequately trained.

Amid these negative experiences, there is one thread of nuance worth noting: a single account refers to a period earlier when a family member, whose daughter received care there years ago, found the facility to be well-staffed, well-designed, and supportive of stabilization through coping skills. That perspective stands in stark contrast to the prevailing sentiment in more recent reviews, suggesting a marked shift over time - from a facility once seen as effective to a place now perceived as failing those who rely on it most. The juxtaposition underscores a core tension voiced by many: potential improvements, if they occurred, are not reaching the people who need them now, and the overall climate feels increasingly punitive rather than therapeutic.

Taken together, these narratives form a troubling portrait of a mental health facility where concerns about safety, dignity, and proper clinical practice are consistently raised. Families and patients describe a pattern of inadequate communication, inconsistent care, and conditions that degrade rather than support recovery. They call for accountability, improved training, tighter adherence to patient rights, and a reevaluation of staffing levels and therapeutic approaches. In the voices of those affected - the patients and their loved ones - the plea is clear: ensure that care is compassionate, transparent, and grounded in legitimate clinical need, rather than a systemic inclination to minimize, conceal, or rush through treatment in ways that leave people feeling traumatized rather than healed.

This part of Youngstown, Ohio offers a convenient location with a variety of amenities within close proximity. There are several physicians, pharmacies, and hospitals nearby, providing easy access to medical care. The area also features a range of dining options including Italian specialties at Jimmy's and traditional American fare at Bob Evans and Wendy's. For recreation, residents can enjoy the beautiful Fellows Riverside Gardens or explore Tod Park and Wick Recreation Area. Overall, this neighborhood offers a mix of healthcare services, dining options, and outdoor spaces that cater to the needs and interests of seniors looking for a comfortable and convenient place to live.

Physicians

• Chi Sown Ko (0.2 miles)
• Mid American Court Services (0.3 miles)
• Uday K Dasika MD (0.4 miles)
• Michael Sekman (1.1 miles)
• The Kidney Group (1.4 miles)
• Associates In Women's (1.5 miles)
• Dr Iskander (1.5 miles)

Restaurants

• Jimmy's Italian Food Specialties (0.3 miles)
• Bob Evans (1 miles)
• Wendy's (1.1 miles)
• The Landmark Restaurant (2.2 miles)
• Noble Creature Cask House (2.7 miles)
• Margherita's Grille (2.7 miles)
• Avalon Downtown Pizzeria (2.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• Allen's Pharmaserv (0.3 miles)
• Qol Meds (2.3 miles)
• Rite Aid (2.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.1 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.2 miles)
• Berry's Pharmacy (4.4 miles)
• Marc's Stores (4.9 miles)

Hospitals

• Valley Care Health System-Ohio (0.4 miles)
• Tod Childrens Hospital Forum Health (0.4 miles)
• Belmont Pines Hospital (1.6 miles)
• St Elizabeth Health Center (1.7 miles)
• St Elizabeth Health Center - Pre Op (1.7 miles)
• Akron Children's Hospital NEO (1.7 miles)
• American Renal Associates (1.7 miles)

Cafes

• Saint E's Cafe (1.7 miles)
• Starbucks (5.6 miles)
• Panera Bread (6 miles)

Parks

• Fellows Riverside Gardens (2.8 miles)
• Tod Park (2.8 miles)
• Wick Recreation Area (3.9 miles)
• Harding Park (4.9 miles)