Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: many reviewers describe Advanced Health Care of Glendale as a beautiful, hotel-like rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility with outstanding amenities and therapeutic staff, while a substantial number of other reviews report serious clinical, safety, and management failures. The most consistent positive themes are the facility’s appearance, cleanliness, private rooms, high-quality dining, and strong therapy programs. Conversely, the most serious negative themes are medication mismanagement (including Medicare-audited findings), clinical neglect, poor communication, and billing/administrative problems.
Care quality and clinical safety: Multiple reviews praise the rehabilitation outcomes and individual therapists who produce measurable improvements. However, a significant number of reports describe medication errors, delayed or missed doses, wrong medications administered for extended periods, and documented Medicare concerns. There are repeated reports of missed assessments (notably nutrition assessments), inadequate monitoring for dehydration and swollen extremities, and failures to notice or prevent pressure injuries. Several reviews describe delayed hospital transfers and delayed emergency responses (including an eight-hour delay resulting in ICU transfer in one report) and at least one fall leading to a hip/femur fracture. These clinical incidents — coupled with allegations of misdiagnoses (e.g., stroke misdiagnosis), unnecessary psychiatric evaluations, and UTIs leading to rehospitalization — suggest serious, systemic gaps in consistent clinical oversight for a subset of patients.
Staffing, responsiveness, and culture: Reviews reveal a stark variation in staff performance. Many family members and residents single out nurses, CNAs, therapists, administrators, and kitchen/housekeeping staff as compassionate, attentive, and professional; specific employees and leaders (such as an administrator named Wyatt and some long‑tenured nurses/therapists) receive enthusiastic praise. At the same time, other reviewers describe rude, defensive, or untrained staff; long delays answering call lights (30-minute-plus waits in some cases); housekeeping lapses (linens unchanged for days); and a skeleton crew at certain shifts that left residents unattended. This polarity suggests uneven hiring, training, or shift coverage, producing very different experiences depending on unit, shift, or staffing levels.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Therapy is one of the facility’s strongest recurring positives — many reviewers report excellent PT/OT with tangible recovery, knowledgeable therapists, and a well‑equipped gym. Yet other reviews document therapy plans not followed (skipped sessions, underutilized PT rooms or ordered equipment not used), forced or ineffective rehab, and therapists perceived as negative or insufficiently communicative. This inconsistency in rehabilitation delivery appears to be a major driver of outcome variability: when therapy is delivered as intended, positive outcomes are often reported; when it is not, families report stalled recoveries and early discharges.
Facilities, dining, and amenities: Virtually every review acknowledges the facility’s aesthetic strengths: tasteful décor, chandeliers, aquarium, comfortable furniture, private rooms with microwaves/refrigerators/TVs, and restaurant-style dining with a full-time chef and memorable desserts. For many residents and families, these features produce a healing, resort-like environment and contribute to overall satisfaction. However, a subset of reviews notes that excellent appearance and food can mask underlying care deficits; some reviewers described barely edible meals or lack of personalized meal plans for patients with special dietary needs (including diabetes), pointing to inconsistent dietary accommodation.
Management, communication, and billing: Management gets mixed marks. Several reviewers praise the administration as responsive and caring, and name managers who were helpful. Conversely, many reviews raise serious concerns about discharge planning (no medications on discharge, prescriptions not called in, oxygen not arranged), poor family communication, miscommunication about clinical status, and billing errors (unexpected charges such as a $4,224 bill, Medicare billing concerns, and disputes with contracted doctors over insurance). Some reviewers allege the facility prioritized payment over patient welfare. The presence of Medicare audit findings in reviews reinforces concerns about documentation, compliance, and transparency.
Safety, infection control, and COVID: Some reviewers were reassured by safety-focused practices and by staff efforts during the pandemic; others reported active COVID outbreaks within the facility, residents and staff testing positive, forced discharges, and extended isolation that had negative consequences for patient health. Recurrent mentions of UTIs, staff infections, and lapses in basic supplies (ice, oxygen set-up, bed safety devices) indicate inconsistent infection control and supply management across stays.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. The same facility is described as best-in-class by many and as dangerous or neglectful by others. Positive experiences cluster around strong therapy delivery, attentive and stable staffing, and engaged management. Negative experiences cluster around clinical safety failures, medication errors, staffing shortages, inadequate discharge coordination, and billing disputes. Several reviewers concluded that the facility may be excellent when staffing and clinical processes align, but risky when those processes break down — implying a high degree of variability tied to time of stay, specific staff on duty, or unit practices.
Bottom-line assessment: Families considering this facility should weigh the clear strengths — upscale, clean environment; private rooms; high-caliber therapy when consistently provided; and excellent dining — against serious, well-documented clinical and administrative concerns that have recurred across multiple independent reviews (medication mismanagement, documentation/Medicare flags, falls, delayed transfers, infection events, inconsistent staff competency, and billing surprises). Prospective residents and families should (1) verify clinical protocols for medications and nutrition assessments, (2) ask about staffing levels and weekend/evening coverage, (3) clarify discharge planning and billing responsibilities in writing, (4) confirm the specific therapy plan and frequency in writing, and (5) seek recommendations for consistent caregivers or managers (if available). The facility can deliver outstanding care in many cases, but reviewers repeatedly urge vigilance and proactive advocacy to ensure safe, consistent outcomes.
