Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with a substantial split between reviewers who praise the facility and those who report serious concerns. Several reviewers describe Highland Park Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre as clean, professionally run, and responsive to patient needs, with effective physical therapy and an admissions team that is knowledgeable and personable. These positive reviews emphasize easy visiting, convenient location and freeway access, accommodating staff, and an environment some characterize as healthy and even fun. A number of comments note that the facility is under new management and that conditions have improved relative to older reviews.
However, an opposing group of reviews raises significant red flags about hygiene, safety, and staff behavior. Multiple reviewers describe the facility as dirty and outdated, citing old beds and tables and alleging infection-control lapses, including a specific report referencing sepsis and nurses not changing gloves. These are serious patient-safety concerns that contrast sharply with the positive cleanliness reports. In addition to infection-control issues, several reviews report poor pain management — patients described as being in pain with staff not acting or addressing pain complaints — and some reviewers explicitly state they would not recommend the facility.
Staff performance is another area of wide variance. Many reviews praise staff as professional, responsive, well-trained, and caring; physical therapy progress and accommodating behavior are highlighted. Conversely, other reviews describe staff as unresponsive, rude, and poor communicators. There are reports of awful experiences and strong discouragements from choosing the facility. This indicates inconsistent staff behaviors or variability in experiences depending on unit, shift, or time period.
Facility condition and appearance are similarly conflicted in the reviews. Some reviewers explicitly say the facility is wonderfully clean with no odors and well cared for, while others find it dirty and old with misleading photos used in listing materials. The divergence suggests either variable conditions across different parts of the facility or changes over time (some reviews imply recent management changes and improvements). Dining is less frequently mentioned but one recurring negative theme is food quality; at least one review notes issues with food service.
Management and operations show a mix of impressions. A subset of reviewers praise dedicated management and note improvements under new leadership, suggesting that some historical problems may be being addressed. Admissions staff earn several positive mentions for being professional and considerate. At the same time, the persistence of serious allegations (infection-control lapses, failure to treat pain, rude or unresponsive staff) raises concern about whether management changes have been comprehensive or consistent across all care areas.
In summary, these reviews present a polarized picture: some families and patients have had positive, even exceeding expectations, experiences with clean facilities, effective therapy, and caring staff; others report troubling issues with cleanliness, infection control, pain management, food, and staff responsiveness. The most significant and actionable concerns are the reports of infection risk (including sepsis) and lapses in glove-changing and hygiene, plus repeated mentions of poor communication and rude behavior. If you are evaluating this facility, consider an in-person visit focused on current infection-control practices, staff responsiveness and communication during different shifts, pain-management protocols, dining samples, and verification of recent management changes and their impact. Asking for documentation of infection-control policies, recent inspection results, and references from recent residents or families may help clarify which set of experiences is most representative of the facility today.
