Cedar Hill Healthcare Center

Pros

• Some full-time nurses and CNAs demonstrate genuine care for the patients.
• The food served to the residents is reported to be excellent.
• Certain activities are offered to engage the residents, providing them with opportunities for interaction and entertainment.
• The facility grounds are described as pleasing to the eyes, with available outdoor spaces for activities.
• The staff member who provided the tour was very nice, creating a welcoming impression during the visit.

Cons

• The facility has a poor staff-to-patient ratio, leading to inadequate care for residents.
• There is a high turnover rate among staff, resulting in inconsistency in patient care.
• Many contract employees seem indifferent and only focused on getting paid.
• The facilities do not match the images and descriptions provided online; patients must provide their own furniture and televisions.
• Residents often sit in soiled clothes, with staff failing to address the situation unless prompted.
• Some contract workers exhibit unkind behavior towards patients, contrasting with the caring nature of some full-time employees.
• The cleaning standards in the facility are subpar, with unpleasant odors and visible pests present.
• Although food quality appears good, participation in activities seems limited due to staffing shortages.
• The facility has a lack of aesthetic appeal both inside and outside, which diminishes its overall atmosphere.
• The responsiveness of nursing staff is slow, with long wait times for assistance when needed by residents.
• Weekend staff are described as lazy, neglecting their responsibilities to feed or assist residents properly.
• Communication about care plans is insufficient, leaving families frustrated about their loved ones' needs being unmet.

Review

The reviews of Cedar Hill Healthcare Center paint a troubling picture of the facility, reflecting deep concerns about the quality of care provided to its residents. Central to these grievances is the alarming staff-to-patient ratio, which critics argue contributes significantly to a neglectful environment. It appears that high turnover rates among employees and the heavy reliance on contract workers exacerbate these issues. Many contract staff are perceived as disinterested and merely there for a paycheck, leading to an atmosphere where patient needs may be routinely overlooked. This lack of consistent staffing not only hinders effective communication but also diminishes the level of personalized care that residents require.

Moreover, several reviewers expressed dissatisfaction with misleading representations made by Cedar Hill Healthcare Center regarding its amenities. The facility's website showcases images and statements that do not accurately reflect the actual living conditions within. Reports indicate a lack of basic necessities such as televisions in every room—something that residents are expected to supply themselves—alongside outdated and mismatched furniture that fails to meet even minimal comfort standards. Such discrepancies raise questions about transparency and integrity in marketing practices, leaving families feeling misled during their decision-making processes.

In terms of hygiene and maintenance, significant concerns were raised regarding the cleanliness of the facility. Multiple visitors reported unpleasant odors permeating various areas within Cedar Hill Healthcare Center, particularly noting a pervasive smell of urine upon entering. The general state of cleanliness left much to be desired, with some individuals observing roaches crawling throughout the premises and stained floors in need of thorough cleaning. Given these observations, it is disheartening to consider how such unsanitary conditions could impact vulnerable residents who require attentive care.

An additional concern from family members revolves around inadequate attention paid to patients' needs by some staff members. Observers noted instances where patients were left sitting in soiled clothing without timely intervention from caregivers; this neglect often necessitated family members advocating for their loved ones’ immediate needs rather than having those needs proactively met by staff. While some full-time nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) displayed genuine compassion towards residents, the overall impression was marred by reports of unprofessional behavior from certain staff members—including reported instances where nursing aides chose not to assist when needed.

Furthermore, although some activities were made available for residents at Cedar Hill Healthcare Center, participation appeared inconsistent and selective. Visitors expressed frustration over certain patients being unable or unwilling to engage due to insufficient supervision or encouragement from staff responsible for facilitating these activities. Particularly within secured units, apprehensive claims emerged suggesting that staffing limitations hindered engagement opportunities for all residents—contributing further to feelings of isolation among those who needed more social interaction.

Finally, it cannot go unnoticed that while several residents received commendable meals accompanied by occasional engaging activities, many families felt that these positives did little to outweigh the systemic issues they encountered at Cedar Hill Healthcare Center. As one reviewer astutely noted—it seemed as though profits took precedence over patient welfare—a sentiment echoed by others who expressed disappointment over how quickly their loved ones deteriorated under such conditions. Ultimately, this series of accounts culminated in heart-wrenching decisions made by families forced to seek alternative facilities better equipped—and staffed—to care for their cherished relatives properly.

In conclusion, Cedar Hill Healthcare Center stands at a critical juncture; without significant changes regarding staffing practices, cleanliness protocols, and overall attentiveness toward resident care sorrows persist among families navigating this difficult journey with their loved ones. As reports underline multiple layers of systemic failure within its operational structure—from deceptive advertising tactics through deteriorating sanitary conditions—the urgent call for accountability echoes throughout each heartfelt account shared by concerned families seeking relief from their distressing experiences at this facility.

Restaurants

• Burger King (0.3 miles)
• Chili's Grill & Bar (0.5 miles)
• Chick-Fil-A (0.5 miles)
• McDonald's (0.7 miles)
• KFC (0.7 miles)
• IHOP (0.8 miles)
• Whataburger (0.8 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (0.5 miles)
• Panera Bread (1.2 miles)
• Starbucks (3.3 miles)
• Starbucks (6.4 miles)
• Starbucks (7 miles)
• Starbucks (7 miles)
• Panera Bread (7 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (0.6 miles)
• Albertsons Pharmacy (2.9 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.9 miles)
• Walgreens (4 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.3 miles)
• Walgreens (4.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (5.1 miles)

Physicians

• Methodist Family Health Center - Cedar Hill East (1.2 miles)
• Karen Baker, MD - Family Medicine (1.2 miles)
• Total Eye Care (3.8 miles)
• POA Happy Teeth Today (5 miles)
• Southwest Urology Associates (5.3 miles)
• MomPremier Eye Institute (5.4 miles)
• Raymond S Khouw (5.5 miles)

Parks

• Cedar Hill State Park (3.3 miles)
• Valley Ridge Park (4.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Methodist Rehabilitation Hospital (5.8 miles)
• ER at Grand Prairie (7.3 miles)
• Medical Center At Lancaster (7.6 miles)
• Methodist Mansfield Medical Center (9 miles)

Places of Worship

• Matthew Road Baptist Church (7.1 miles)
• Rccg House On The Rock (7.2 miles)
• Walnut Ridge Baptist Church (8.2 miles)
• Creekwood Church (8.8 miles)