Overall sentiment across the collected reviews for Glendale Post Acute Center is highly mixed, with a clear polarization: many reviewers praise individual caregivers, therapy teams, and some operational elements, while a sizable number report serious safety, neglect, communication, and management problems. Positive comments emphasize professional and compassionate bedside care from specific nurses and aides, strong rehabilitation/physical therapy, helpful admissions or concierge support, and engaging activities that benefit residents. Negative reports are often severe, describing neglect, medical complications, missing or stolen belongings, and systemic failures that raise safety and oversight concerns.
Care quality and clinical oversight present a mixed picture. Numerous reviewers praise the physical therapy and rehab teams as well-trained and effective, saying rehab made a meaningful difference for their loved ones. Many nurses and CNAs are described as caring, attentive, and professional, with individual staff members repeatedly singled out for exceptional, family-like care. Conversely, a substantial subset of reviews describe dangerous lapses: nurse call buttons ignored for hours, patients left in soiled diapers or their own feces for long periods, infrequent showering and diaper checks, missed or lost medications, and consequences including urinary tract infections, sepsis, and near-death hospitalizations. Several reviewers explicitly report that doctors did not see patients or failed to return calls, compounding these clinical concerns. These contrasting accounts indicate inconsistent clinical oversight and variable staffing/competency across shifts or units.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication recur as principal themes. Many reviewers cite chronic understaffing—particularly at night—and attribute slow or absent responses to nurse calls, delayed bed changes, and rushed or incomplete care to staffing shortages. Communication problems range from staff reluctance to answer questions, poor responsiveness to phone calls, alleged dishonesty (including an allegation of lying about a time of death), to administrative failures such as incorrect discharge addresses. Positive reports of a responsive social worker and helpful administration exist, but they sit alongside multiple accounts of unreturned calls, missing belongings, and staff who are difficult to reach. The lack of in-room phones and language barriers were also cited as practical contributors to poor communication.
Safety, security, and property management are areas of serious concern in multiple reviews. Several reviewers accuse staff of theft (missing debit cards, watches, clothing), and others report belongings being lost despite staff assurances. There are descriptions of open sores, foot wounds, and holes in sheets that suggest lapses in wound care and basic cleanliness for some residents. Discharge problems—lost medications and erroneous addresses—introduce additional risk and stress for families. While some families express peace of mind and highlight an emphasis on hygiene, the presence of multiple severe safety incidents indicates inconsistent performance and the need for stronger controls and accountability.
Facility condition and environment are described as both acceptable and problematic. Some reviews describe a clean, upgrading facility with spacious rooms and a pleasant dining room. Others report significant maintenance issues: rooms described as dark and outdated, water leaks when it rains, an uninviting or perpetually wet courtyard, construction noise, and a generally run-down appearance. The environment is also affected by operational choices such as scheduled smoking times and visiting policies; restrictive visiting windows (e.g., 30 minutes per day reported by one reviewer) and requirements for appointment-based visits have caused frustration and distress for families.
Dining and activities receive similarly mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise the kitchen staff, say meals are well-prepared and served hot, and note the dining room is nice. Other comments describe food as cold, low-quality, or “awful,” and claim residents were left hungry. Activity programming is a relative strength in many reviews—bingo, karaoke, exercise classes, and other events were appreciated and said to make stays more enjoyable—though some note low participation or lack of inclusivity in activities at times.
Management, accountability, and culture show variation across reviews. There are accounts of helpful and professional administration and admissions teams, concierge-style assistance, and staff who go above and beyond, providing compassionate updates, video chats, and grooming. In contrast, other families describe unprofessional administrative behaviors, staff being disciplined for patient-facing attitudes, and poor accountability when incidents occur. The presence of named excellent caregivers alongside allegations of theft and severe neglect suggests inconsistent hiring, training, supervision, and disciplinary processes.
Patterns and recommendations drawn from these reviews: the facility appears capable of delivering high-quality post-acute rehab and compassionate care—many positive experiences support this—but there are repeated, serious allegations that point to systemic vulnerabilities: staffing shortfalls, inconsistent clinical oversight, poor communication, property security issues, and uneven facility maintenance. Prospective residents and families should weigh the documented strengths (notably the rehab team and some exemplary caregivers) against the significant safety and management concerns raised by multiple reviewers. For the facility, priorities should include improving staffing levels and night coverage, strengthening communication protocols and discharge procedures, instituting tighter property-security and documentation practices, resolving maintenance issues (leaks, lighting, courtyard drainage), and implementing consistent auditing and accountability measures to reduce variability in care quality.
